[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Higher-level Skills

Karl McCartney: What steps he is taking to support higher-level skills in further education.

Sajid Javid: I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending its best wishes to Major Tim Peake, who successfully blasted off towards space just 30 minutes ago. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
	We are reforming technical education and establishing clear routes into higher-level skills and employment. We are spending £2.5 billion on apprenticeships—double the amount in 2010—and £1.5 billion on adult skills, growing degree and higher apprenticeships and establishing specialist colleges.

Karl McCartney: I join the whole House in sending the Secretary of State’s good wishes to our fellow countryman.
	Under the Conservatives, Lincoln’s improved educational map offers the young people of Lincoln myriad—nay, a plethora of—opportunities. Does the Secretary of State agree that prioritising funding for young adults, the low-skilled and those actively looking for work is the right thing for a Conservative Government to do?

Sajid Javid: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know cares passionately about skills for young adults. He will be pleased to know that we rightly prioritised spending on further education in the recent spending review, which will enable colleges, such as Lincoln college in his constituency, to offer more to young people.

Adrian Bailey: Further education colleges are vital for apprenticeships in engineering and construction, in which there is an acute shortage of skills across the country. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the cuts in funding to FE colleges in terms of delivering this much-needed agenda?

Sajid Javid: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is talking about cuts in FE spending. I know that is what Labour was scaremongering about just a few weeks ago, but we have actually protected the adult education budget in cash terms, we will double spending on apprenticeships by 2020 and we have extended the availability of advanced learner loans. Taken together, this will mean a 35% real increase in FE spending by 2020 compared with this year.[Official Report, 5 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 1-2MC.]

Andrew Murrison: I welcome the removal of the cap on university places, but what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the effect on further education colleges, such as Wiltshire college in my constituency, given that they are fishing from the same pool in terms of vocationally based diplomas and apprenticeships?

Sajid Javid: I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We have seen an increase in that, especially in FE colleges that offer higher education courses, which is exactly the kind of diversity and growth we want.

Andrew Gwynne: But as ever, it is smoke and mirrors with this Secretary of State. He knows that the Chancellor has announced an extra £360 million of savings from the adult skills budget, so will he come clean and tell us where those cuts will be made?

Sajid Javid: The Department will shortly issue a skills funding letter answering some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but perhaps he missed the point that I just made: the adult education budget is protected in cash terms, we will double spending on apprenticeships by 2020 and the FE budget will be up by the end of the Parliament in real terms.

Met Office Funding

David Davies: What steps he is taking to ensure that the Government receives value for money from its funding of the Met Office.

Sajid Javid: The Met Office plays a key role in our economy. A recent review of the public weather service assessed it as delivering up to £1.5 billion of annual value. As the shareholder for the Met Office, I and my officials regularly hold it to account and ensure it delivers value for money for the taxpayer.

David Davies: The BBC, no less, reported in 2012 that in 11 out of the previous 12 years predictions about increases in temperature had been wrong and that there had been a warm bias. Does the Secretary of State, as the shareholder, agree that he should be asking some tough questions at the board meeting about why we should be imposing expensive climate change policies on businesses and householders, when so often the predictions behind them are proved to be inaccurate?

Sajid Javid: I always like to ask tough questions, but I note there was flooding in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently, and the Met Office played a key role in helping the emergency services and protecting lives and property. Today is an opportunity to commend the Met Office for some of the work it does.

Trade Opportunities

Andrea Jenkyns: What steps he is taking to promote trade opportunities for UK businesses.

Sajid Javid: I chair the exports implementation taskforce, which is driving cross-Whitehall support for exports. In November, my noble Friend Lord Maude launched the five-year Exporting is GREAT campaign, which promotes real-time global export opportunities to business.

Andrea Jenkyns: In November, I hosted an event in my constituency with the China-Britain Business Council to which I invited small businesses to come and find out more about trading with China. The all-party parliamentary group on China is aiming to help 50 Members to organise similar events. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how his Department plans to make good use of our new trading relationship with China to help small businesses expand into these vital global markets?

Sajid Javid: Let me commend my hon. Friend on her efforts to encourage businesses in her constituency to export more to China. While exports to China have doubled in the last five years, there is a lot of potential and a lot more that we can do. The recent visit by the Chinese President helped to highlight that, and the effort that my hon. Friend is making with UK Trade & Investment, the China-Britain Business Council and others provides an example to us all.

Nicholas Dakin: What steps has the Secretary of State taken since the steel summit to increase trade opportunities for the UK steel sector?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The more we can export of higher-value steel products, the more we can help. We have been discussing this with UKTI and steel producers. We are coming up with a plan, and this will certainly feature in the trade meetings we have in due course.

Amanda Milling: Next month, I will be jointly hosting an event with UKTI to encourage more local Cannock Chase businesses to consider exporting. Will my right hon. Friend outline what the Government are doing to encourage new businesses to export?

Sajid Javid: I can talk about a number of initiatives, including the Exporting is GREAT website and the roadshow that will visit constituencies up and down the country. There is obviously also the work that UKTI is doing. Most recently, I helped to launch the midlands engine scheme, which I know my hon. Friend will welcome. We released more money to help that region with exports, including a midlands engine roadshow.

Margaret Ritchie: As part of the work of the export implementation group, will the Secretary of State explore with the Secretary of
	State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs all options to access new markets for all our farm produce in north America and south-east Asia?

Sajid Javid: Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes an important point. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been taking this matter very seriously. One thing we have done recently is to move some of the UKTI resources into my right hon. Friend’s Department so that there is better co-ordination.

Peter Bone: I recently talked to a senior Indian businessman and asked him how we could increase trade with India. He said that the one thing we could do was to leave the EU because of the restrictions. Will the Secretary of State, either as Secretary of State or personally, endorse his comment?

Sajid Javid: I spoke to a lot of Indian businessmen and women and many Indian students last week. There is certainly one area in respect of which we could certainly increase our exports to India, and that is education.

Kevin Brennan: It is all very well, but it is not working, is it? The UK’s latest balance of trade deficit is widening. It was up to £2.4 billion in the last quarter. Exports of goods—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise should have a little listen to this. Exports of goods from UK actually fell last month by £700 million. It is a pity we cannot export spin, because the Government are very good at that. The “march of the makers” was very good, and now we have the “midlands engine”. What is the Secretary of State’s excuse for the Government’s dismal record on the trade deficit?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman should not do down our world-class exporters. They are doing a fantastic job. Let me give him a few examples of what they can export. They can export wine to France, chocolate to Belgium and even boomerangs to Australia, although I fear that it is sometimes the same boomerang that keeps coming back.

Apprenticeships

Craig Tracey: What steps he is taking to improve standards in apprenticeships.

Nicholas Boles: We have given employers control over apprenticeship standards and require all apprenticeships to last at least 12 months and involve substantial off-the-job training. We will be setting up an independent, employer-led institute for apprenticeships to approve standards and assure quality in future.

Craig Tracey: I thank the Minister for that response, and I welcome the fact that there has been nearly 1,100 apprenticeship starts in north Warwickshire and Bedworth over the last 12 months. However, I know that local businesses are concerned that the focus might be on quantity than quality. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents, especially those in highly skilled engineering, that that will not be the case?

Nicholas Boles: There is, in fact, no innate tension between quantity and quality. We want better quality, because that will mean more employers wanting to offer apprenticeships, such as BMW in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I strongly welcome the very high-quality apprenticeships that it is creating.

Stephen Timms: As the Minister will know, Ofsted has said that apprenticeships are not good enough at present, and many people in industry believe that the only way to hit the 3 million target is to water down quality further. What reassurance can the Minister provide?

Nicholas Boles: I welcome that question, because while it is true that Ofsted has highlighted some bad practice, that bad practice has been familiar to us all for a long time, and has inspired the reforms that we are introducing. All apprenticeship frameworks will be replaced by standards developed by employers. Training must last for more than 12 months, and at least 20% of it must be off-the-job training. We will also ensure that quality improves at all levels. I disagree slightly with the chief inspector’s implication that a level 2 apprenticeship is somehow not of high quality. Apprenticeships should be of high quality at all levels, and the existing level 2 apprenticeships increase people’s incomes by an average of 11% three to five years later.

Stephen Metcalfe: There were 970 new starts in my constituency last year, many of them in engineering and technology. That was an increase of 24% on the number of starts in the previous year. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new apprentices, and does he agree that those figures show that the Government are committed to high-quality apprenticeship places, such as those that are provided at Prospects college of advanced technology?

Nicholas Boles: That was a stunning achievement in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that it was largely due to PROCAT, which is an excellent institution, and one of the first institutions to become a college for a long time. My visit to PROCAT was my first visit to a college in my current job, and if my hon. Friend invites me to return, I shall be happy to do so.

Peter Kyle: I commend the Minister for establishing an institute for apprenticeships which will put employers at its heart, but may I suggest that he should consult trade unions and find ways of harnessing their insight and experience in this valuable area?

Nicholas Boles: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I greatly value the work that trade unions do in encouraging employees to take up training opportunities, which is why we continue to fund the important work of Unionlearn. I will certainly reflect on his suggestion, and will make some announcements shortly.

Philip Hollobone: Snap-on is a major United States manufacturer, developer and marketer of tools, and its UK headquarters are in Kettering. Given that it is seeking to increase its investment in apprenticeships throughout the country, will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to open its new £2 million facility in Kettering on 15 February?

Nicholas Boles: I am glad to say that Kettering is very close to my own constituency. If the Whips allow me, I will be there.

Business Support (Exports)

Mike Kane: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses which export.

Sajid Javid: My Department is leading a cross-Whitehall work programme to support exports. For example, UK Trade & Investment connects UK businesses with export opportunities throughout the world, and over the next year, the UKTI export hub will travel around the country to give face-to-face assistance to first-time exporters.

Mike Kane: Feedback from businesses in my constituency suggests that there needs to be more support for small and medium-sized enterprises that export less than half a million pounds’ worth of goods. It suggests that once they are in the bracket of Government support, that support is short-lived, and is complicated by red tape. How would the Secretary of State respond to those businesses?

Sajid Javid: I agree that we should always try to do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, to export more. The hon. Gentleman may know that I recently led one of our first regional trade missions, the northern powerhouse trade mission, to the far east. It included not only the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce, but companies such as Televic Education, which is in his constituency.

Tom Pursglove: Fairline has a long history of exporting luxury boats across the world, but last week we heard the devastating news of 380 redundancies. While I hope that the administrator can identify a buyer, many of those employees have been laid off for significant periods with reduced pay. Will the Secretary of State do all that he can to ensure that the redundancy payments are expedited, especially given that Christmas is just around the corner?

Sajid Javid: This is, of course, a very difficult time for the employees who have been affected. I will certainly look into the position, and, during discussions with any potential buyer, I will ensure that export opportunities are highlighted.

David Simpson: Do the Government foresee any long-term difficulties with the transatlantic trade agreement with the United States if the Americans decide to export agri-food products into the UK?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that these discussions are still going on. By their very nature, they are complex, as two huge economic areas are involved, and so they will still take some time. Agri-products and all products of that nature need to be carefully looked at, so we have not reached a final point. It is worth remembering that once this deal is done, it can be worth up to £400 for every household in the UK each year.

Michael Fabricant: In my former career, I exported broadcasting equipment to 48 countries worldwide—no thanks to the EU and its regulations. Is it not the case that people need the chutzpah to export, and although the Department can give as much help as it can, people have actually to get out there and do it, and be confident in doing so?

Sajid Javid: One thing we know is that my hon. Friend is not short of chutzpah, and I am glad he deployed it in his former career. He is absolutely right in what he says and he makes a key point: there is only so much the Government can do. We will do that and look for ways to provide even more support, but we want more and more companies to do everything they can, too.

Bill Esterson: The Government’s so-called support for exports has seen grants converted to loans, and the sudden closure of the business growth service. Businesses supported by that service grew four times faster than other businesses, and the scheme created 83,000 jobs and added more than £3.5 billion to the national economy. As one BGS mentor says,
	“the service’s closure doesn’t make sense considering its huge success and may prove detrimental to Britain’s economic health.”
	What message does the closure of the BGS send to businesses that want to grow? Given the outstanding record of success, does the closure of the service not show a complete lack of understanding by this Government of what works on support for exports?

Sajid Javid: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the BGS, because although it was a good fee-earner for consultants, there is very little evidence to show that it helped businesses to grow. [Interruption.] There is little evidence that it was the best way to help those businesses. The best way to help businesses is to make sure that we continue to have a growing economy—our economy is growing faster than those of all our rivals—so one thing he can do is support our long-term economic plan. We are also providing funding to 39 local enterprise partnerships—all the LEPs—through growth hubs, which they can use for localised support, including export opportunities.

Apprenticeship Levy

Tommy Sheppard: What assessment he has made of the potential cost to businesses of implementation of the apprenticeships levy.

Nicholas Boles: Employers with a payroll bill of more than £3 million a year will be required to pay the new apprenticeship levy. It will raise £3 billion in 2019-20 to support apprenticeship training throughout the UK, including in Scotland.

Tommy Sheppard: We do, of course, hope that the apprenticeship levy will provide the same opportunities for young people south of the border as the 25,000 who started a modern apprenticeship in Scotland this year have. Is the Minister aware of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ concerns that the number of small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the levy is likely to be much greater than originally thought? Will he give an undertaking to provide clear and early guidance to those, well in advance of implementation?

Nicholas Boles: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is proud of the 25,000 modern apprenticeship starts in Scotland, just as we are proud of the half a million starts we have had in the past year in England. This would suggest to me that we can both take pride in our commitment to apprenticeships. I hope he will welcome the fact that the apprenticeship levy will be generating resources, some of which will pass to Scotland to enable it to fund what I hope will be a dramatic expansion in the number of its apprenticeships.

Hannah Bardell: As the Minister will appreciate, the oil and gas industry faces distinct challenges at the moment. I know from my engagement with companies in the sector that there is significant concern that this levy may represent a second charge, with many oil and gas companies already paying levies to industry trading bodies. It also represents an additional cost to these companies at a time when controlling business costs is of paramount importance. Will he commit to meet me, along with my colleagues and a delegation from the industry, to hear their concerns and discuss how the apprenticeship levy scheme can be designed to take account of these circumstances?

Nicholas Boles: Of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and that delegation, but I will be asking them what they thought of her party’s plans for Scotland’s economy, which rested on oil prices at $100 a barrel and would now see an independent Scotland entirely bankrupt and probably scuttling to the International Monetary Fund.

Adult Skills (Funding)

Barbara Keeley: What steps he plans to take to make the efficiencies and savings in adult skills set out in the “Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015”.

Nicholas Boles: We are protecting funding for adult education at £1.5 billion per year in cash terms. We are extending advanced learner loans to more adult learners and increasing spending on adult apprenticeships to £1.5 billion by 2019-20. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, this means that total funding for adult skills training will be 36% higher in the last year of this Parliament than in the first.[Official Report, 5 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 2MC.]

Barbara Keeley: Salford city college was one of more than 100 further education colleges that wrote to the Prime Minister to protest at repeated year-on-year real-terms funding cuts to adult skills since 2010 amounting to 40%. Despite the promise not to cut adult skills funding for FE colleges, Treasury documents say that there will be £360 million of savings and efficiencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned. After years of savage cuts, how can that be achieved?

Nicholas Boles: Like many other colleges, the hon. Lady’s college wrote to the Prime Minister before the spending review in response to the shroud waving by the Opposition, who predicted a 25% to 40% cut in the adult skills budget. If the hon. Lady had taken the trouble to attend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s spending review statement, she would have heard that he was protecting it in cash terms while increasing the funding for apprenticeships, which her college and others could bid for. If she spoke to her college, she would discover that, like all other colleges, it is pleasantly surprised by the funding settlement.

Chi Onwurah: Any credible long-term economic plan would recognise the critical importance of adult reskilling, but the Government have systematically cut adult skills by 40% since 2010, including a 24% cut in February this year in non-apprenticeship funding. That is probably why the Chancellor ducked out of making any reference to the further cuts in his autumn statement, leaving it to his Blue Book to talk about £360 million of efficiencies. Will the Minister say precisely what the £1.5 billion of core funding that he talks of is made up of? Does it include loans to over 25-year-olds, 50% of which we know will not be taken up?

Nicholas Boles: No.

Further Education College (Sittingbourne)

Gordon Henderson: What steps his Department is taking to establish a further education college in Sittingbourne.

Nicholas Boles: The House is making me earn my salary today.
	We have launched a process of locally-led area reviews to consider each area’s skills needs and plan how further education colleges and sixth form colleges can best organise themselves to meet them. The Kent review is due to start in November 2016.

Gordon Henderson: I welcome the review. Sittingbourne is the largest town in Kent without its own FE college. However, we have a unique opportunity to change that. May I invite the Minister to visit the Swale skills centre in my constituency to learn about how, with the right help, it could easily and cheaply be extended into a small college?

Nicholas Boles: I have had a message from the Whips saying that they would be only too delighted for me to do further visits to hon. Members’ constituencies, so I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. We do not hear the Opposition celebrating when new institutions open, including the Swale skills centre, which was set up by a very successful academies trust that is already doing a great job of running three local schools.

Student Loans

Kate Hollern: What discussions he has had on the effect of freezing the threshold at which graduates repay their student loans.

Sajid Javid: I consulted on the proposal to freeze the student loan repayment threshold and received responses from a wide range of interested parties. I considered those responses, as well as a detailed impact analysis, before deciding to proceed with the freezing of the threshold.

Kate Hollern: Does the Secretary of State agree that if a commercial company had made a retrospective change to a contract in this way, costing students £6,000 in the process, there would likely be an investigation? Does he accept that, in doing so, he breached the trust of former, current and future students?

Sajid Javid: What I accept is that these were the right set of changes. I considered the responses to the consultation carefully. It is important that we strike the right balance between the interests of the students, making sure that all who have the ability have the opportunity to go to university, and the interests of the taxpayer, ensuring that we have an affordable, sustainable funding system. That is exactly what the changes bring about.

Andrew Bridgen: Despite the negative comments from the Opposition, can the Secretary of State confirm that this year record numbers of young people secured places at university, including record numbers of children from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right. That is true of England. We have seen a record increase to 382,000 people in the past year, and the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds has gone up from 9.5% to 18.2% in the past five years. In Scotland we have seen a fall in the number of students because Scotland does not have a funding system that allows all who want to go to university to do so.

Wes Streeting: Given the report in The Independent on Sunday that Ministers in the Cabinet Office are desperately trying to find ways to increase the cap on tuition fees without proper debate and a vote in this House, can the Secretary of State confirm that any attempt to increase the cap on tuition fees will come back to this House for a full debate and vote? Can he also confirm that Government proposals in the autumn statement to extend tuition fees to nurses, midwives and students of allied health subjects will be subject to a proper debate and a vote in this House?

Sajid Javid: If the Government do decide to change the caps on tuition fees, there will, of course, be a debate in this House.

Paul Blomfield: Does the Secretary of State agree that retrospectively changing the terms of a contract is, in effect, mis-selling? Will he guarantee that in this Parliament there will be no further changes to either thresholds or interest rates?

Sajid Javid: The changes in question are entirely lawful. That is the advice that I received and it is perfectly consistent with the aims. Hon. Members should remember that the loans that are provided are on significantly better terms than those that are available commercially, and they achieve the objective of allowing all those who wish to go to university and who have the ability to do so.

Aerospace Industry

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.

Steve Double: What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.

Anna Soubry: I was delighted that in the spending review the Government committed a further £900 million of funding for aerospace research and development, supported by the Aerospace Technology Institute. That means that this Government will invest almost £2 billion in aerospace research over 13 years to 2025-26, so our world-leading aerospace industry can stay at the forefront of development and capitalise on the estimated £3.6 trillion market for new aircraft that will be needed over the next 20 years.

Andrew Stephenson: I recently met Mark Porter and Jon Brough, the trade union representatives at Rolls-Royce’s two sites at Barnoldswick in my constituency. They welcome the continuation of Government support for the aerospace growth partnership in the comprehensive spending review. However, they remain concerned about the outsourcing of high-value engineering jobs to low-cost countries. What more can my right hon. Friend do to address this concern?

Anna Soubry: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the concerns of all those he has met with. Rolls-Royce, along with the aerospace sector as a whole, is a major contributor to the United Kingdom economy, so we get how important it is. That is why we have protected and, indeed, extended the investment that we are making in research and development.

Steve Double: The recent announcement of the expansion of the Aerohub enterprise zone in Cornwall to include the Goonhilly earth station has been keenly welcomed in Cornwall. Does the Minister agree that this creates a great opportunity for Cornwall to be awarded the location of the UK spaceport, which would provide a huge bonus to the Cornish economy?

Anna Soubry: I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to make that case. I have to say that a number of other airports are in the running and we aim to launch the selection process next year. We have heard the great news about the launch today and Major Tim going up into space. Ground control can report that the UK space sector has almost doubled to £11.8 billion—[Interruption.] I know it is the festive season, but I think it is most unfortunate that Opposition Members are singing. It is not good. I hope they might cheer the fact that the sector has almost doubled to £11.8 billion in just seven years and employs 37,000 people.

Mr Speaker: Order. Sing, but no Member of this House can match David Bowie—highly relevant as far as ground control is concerned.

Angela Smith: Rolls-Royce is of strategic importance to our aerospace industry, not just in Derby but in Sheffield and Bristol.
	What are the Government prepared to do to safeguard that capacity, which is increasingly in the news at the moment, in order to ensure that we not just invest in but safeguard the future of the industry so that the UK stays at the forefront of aerospace manufacturing globally?

Anna Soubry: We should of course mention the importance of Rolls-Royce to a great city like Derby; I say that, obviously, as a Nottinghamshire MP. In all seriousness, we are monitoring the situation carefully. We recognise the huge importance of the role that Rolls-Royce plays in our economy. It is really important that we do not talk things down. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but there is too often a tendency among Labour Members, not necessarily the hon. Lady, to talk things down. It is really important that we do not do that and that we continue to support Rolls-Royce.

Dennis Skinner: In order to stop Rolls-Royce falling into the hands of the Chinese, let us say, why do not this Government take Rolls-Royce back into public ownership?

Anna Soubry: Because—I know the hon. Gentleman will have trouble in understanding this—this is 2015. We are not back in the ’60s and the dark days of the ’70s, and we have a long-term economic plan that delivers, unlike his plan, which would be an absolute disaster for our country.

Yvonne Fovargue: As we have heard from my hon. Friends, we have been watching the recent developments in relation to Rolls-Royce very closely, not only because of the implications for national security but because it is the biggest single employer for Britain’s aerospace sector. As the Minister said, the global market for new aircraft is predicted to be worth £3.6 trillion in the next 20 years, so we welcome the investment in the Aerospace Technology Institute. However, is it not about time that Ministers considered developing an industrial strategy instead of continuing the current piecemeal approach?

Anna Soubry: I am not going to repeat all the things I have said about our continuing investment. With £900 million of taxpayers’ money going into aerospace, we absolutely understand and recognise its significance. It is very easy to put on labels, but it does not matter what label we put on—it is about delivery, and that is what this Government continue to do.

Energy Sector (Research and Development)

Michael Weir: What funding his Department plans to allocate to research and development in the energy sector over the next five years.

George Freeman: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor demonstrated in the autumn statement, the Government put investment in R and D as the top priority in our long-term economic plan. I am delighted, as I am sure that Opposition Members will be, by the announcement on ring-fencing the science budget, with £6.9 billion on science capital and £4.7 billion on revenue. In addition, the Prime Minister recently announced a 50% increase in our funding of climate finance, with £400 million over this Parliament, and we have just announced £60 million going into the energy research accelerator.

Michael Weir: Launching an investment coalition in Paris at the weekend, Bill Gates made the point that if we are to avoid global warming we have to move at full speed in developing new renewable energy technologies. To ensure that the UK plays its part, what progress have Ministers made in ensuring that the UK Green Investment Bank receives the full £3.8 billion of capitalisation and maintains its green mandate, irrespective of the future of the Government’s stake in the bank?

George Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of £400 million extra funding. The Green Investment Bank has played the role that we envisaged in supporting the green economy, which is not an allotment economy—it now constitutes 96,000 businesses with 230,000 employees and a turnover of £45 billion for the British economy and £4.8 billion of exports. By giving the Green Investment Bank the freedom to raise money on the capital markets, we will generate more money for the green economy, which is growing under this Government like never before.

Peter Aldous: The North sea oil and gas sector faces significant challenges at the current time, with a need for a collegiate approach to research and development to fuel innovation and to drive down costs. To achieve this, will the Minister consider setting up a North sea oil and gas innovation centre similar to the very successful offshore wind catapult?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. On the east coast in East Anglia, in the north and in Scotland, this country is leading in the field of offshore energy. We have just funded the offshore energy centre, but I would be happy to look at the specific idea that he recommends.

Hannah Bardell: “Extremely disappointing”, “missed opportunity”, “damaging” and “disgrace” were some of the words and phrases used to describe this Government’s decision to withdraw £1 billion of funding from carbon capture and storage. Hundreds of jobs for the communities of the north-east of Scotland, and the opportunity to be at the forefront of low-carbon innovation, have now been lost. The Government will instead spend hundreds of millions of pounds on subsidising research into nuclear energy. In the light of that decision, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to explain to the people of Peterhead and the north-east specifically how he has supported them to be world leaders in innovation?

George Freeman: It is a pleasure to follow that speech. I will happily repeat the figure I just gave: the Prime Minister has just announced £400 million of extra funding for energy finance. We have just made announcements on onshore research. One of the lessons for Scotland is to reduce its dependence on public sector funding. The truth is that, under the renewables obligation for offshore wind, 28% of the funding went to Scotland—that is £560 million—when it represents only 10% of bill payers. We need to support the green economy in Scotland, just like we are doing in the rest of the country.

David Mowat: In the spending review, a major energy investment of £250 million was announced for small modular reactors. That was warmly welcomed in the north-west and it will make a big difference to our ability to meet our climate change targets. It is crucial that the UK owns the intellectual property rights that result from that technology. Will the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change make sure that that is the case?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend is something of an expert on those matters and I will happily look into the very important point he makes. One of the benefits of our support for the green economy—which, as I have said, is now a £45 billion sector in this country—is that we are generating the leading technologies in 21st-century green energy. I will happily look into the specific points he makes.

Small Businesses (Late Payments)

Alex Chalk: What steps he is taking to tackle late payment to small businesses.

Anna Soubry: The Enterprise Bill, which is going through the other place, will create a small business commissioner, and one of his or her most important roles will be to make sure, as much as possible, that the continuing problem with late payment is brought to an end. Of course, we have other measures in hand to make sure that there is reporting, but we are making good progress.

Alex Chalk: Cheltenham’s superb range of shops and small business rely for their success on people getting out from behind their computers and physically visiting local shops. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities should promote flexible and, above all, cheap parking wherever possible to support small businesses and shopping hubs such as Cheltenham?

Anna Soubry: I fear that, as ever, I am a bit off message. I take a radical approach to parking. As far as is ever possible, I take the view that there should be no parking charges in any towns. The car parks belong to the people—they absolutely do. There are times when a local authority wants to put in car-parking charges—a very good example being in Rushcliffe—to make sure that people do not abuse them, but, as far as possible, we should be supporting our great town centres and our great small businesses. We should not charge people for the luxury of parking in their own hometowns.

Barry Sheerman: In the spirit of Christmas, may I invite the whole ministerial team to come to Huddersfield, where they can learn about spinning and weaving? I can also arrange for them to have a wonderful “Made in Huddersfield” worsted suit, just like the one I am wearing. They can also meet small businesses and the Textile Centre of Excellence and talk about all the pressures on small business and the problems they face because the Government want to take us out of Europe, which will stop us exporting to the rest of the world.

Anna Soubry: It was all going so well—I was going to be a little Christmas fairy. Of course, everybody knows my views, and, indeed, those of my Prime Minister, on the European Union: we want to stay in a reformed Union and make sure that we get those reforms. In the spirit of Christmas, I would be delighted to go to Huddersfield. I could talk about my family’s long-standing relationship with Huddersfield. We will do that on the basis that I will go to Huddersfield if the hon. Gentleman will come to Broxtowe, to Beeston in particular.

Cyber-resilience

Clive Efford: What discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on supporting the cyber-resilience of UK businesses.

Ed Vaizey: I am delighted to say that I talk about cyber-resilience a lot with the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Only the other day, we were saying how pleased we were to hear the Chancellor announce the doubling of the cyber-security budget to almost £2 billion.

Clive Efford: I am delighted that the Minister has more than doubled the budget, but only 10% of it goes on consumers, the police force and small businesses. What is the Minister doing to encourage small businesses that are time-poor, meaning that they are not able to engage with this sort of administration? What is he going to do for business in Eltham, to ensure that they are safe online?

Ed Vaizey: I did not double the budget; it was the Chancellor. It is important—particularly for one’s career—to give him credit when he does such things. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point very seriously. We have a fantastic scheme called the cyber essentials scheme, which allows small businesses and large businesses to get a certificate to show that they have been through a process to increase their cyber-security.

Productivity

Richard Arkless: What steps he is taking to improve productivity in the economy.

Sajid Javid: The Government are working hard to deliver the ambitious measures outlined in our productivity plan. We will drive productivity growth throughout the UK by encouraging long-term investment and promoting a dynamic economy.

Richard Arkless: Productivity has been the Achilles heel of this Government’s economic policy. Comparisons with G7 countries are poor, and the figures are even worse when compared with those for smaller to medium-sized and—dare I say?—independent countries. Is it not the case that the Government have been completely obsessed with austerity, and cuts and have completely neglected productivity, internationalisation and innovation, which is the fairer, more progressive way to raise tax receipts and reduce the deficit?

Sajid Javid: No, that is absolutely not the case. The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a long-running productivity issue in our country under successive Governments. That is why we have published the ambitious productivity plan, dealing with issues such as skills, infrastructure and innovation. In the past year, we have seen a 1.3% year-on-year increase in output per hour, which is very encouraging.

Rob Marris: After five years in charge, it is time the Government took some responsibility. Why has productivity stalled for the past five years?

Sajid Javid: Because after 13 years of the Labour party being in charge, we had the biggest recession our country had seen in almost 100 years and it has taken time for the country to recover from that. As I have said, productivity is on the rise.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Diana Johnson.

Broadband Market (Competition)

Diana R. Johnson: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on improving competition in the broadband market.

Ed Vaizey: It is nice to be back, Mr Speaker. We have a very competitive broadband market. I was thinking about that the other day when I went to York to see TalkTalk delivering fibre to premises. I met the chief executive of Virgin Media, which is investing billions in fibre. There has been an announcement from CityFibre about its acquiring some of KCom’s holdings. On Friday, I will go to see Gigaclear delivering broadband to homes in Epping Forest. We have a very competitive market.

Diana R. Johnson: Ofcom has confirmed to me that Hull is the only city in the country without competition for small businesses and households, and the only city among the worst 20 areas for superfast broadband access. This is really affecting small businesses in Hull. Will the Minister tell me how much of the £530 million that the Government have allocated for investment in superfast broadband will be allocated to Hull?

Ed Vaizey: The hon. Lady knows full well that Hull has traditionally had one, in effect municipal, provider—Kingston Communications, which has been privatised—which is why Hull has white phone boxes, rather than red ones. I am pleased to say that KCom is investing in broadband for the whole of Hull without any need for a public subsidy.

Topical Questions

Kate Hollern: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: The recent spending review delivered a strong settlement for many of the Department’s sectors, focusing support on areas that drive up productivity across the UK.
	As we have heard, in the past hour Major Tim Peake has successfully blasted into orbit. This morning, the Government launched their space policy, which has achieved lift-off. Launched a short time ago in a museum that is not far, far away, the policy document shows that there are no limits to the UK’s ambitions in this area. To mix intergalactic metaphors, we want to boldly go to infinity and beyond, and our new policy will make it so.

Kate Hollern: As everyone knows, if we are to improve productivity, we need a good, strong education system. Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that further education institutions, such as Blackburn College in my constituency, will not receive a real-terms funding cut as a result of the cash-terms freeze in adult and 16-to-19 funding?

Sajid Javid: I agree with the hon. Lady on the issue of productivity and the need to boost skills. There will be area reviews, so I cannot make a promise about any particular institution. However, as the Minister for Skills has said, there will be an increase in FE funding of more than 35% in real terms over the lifetime of the Parliament. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, there has been a 75% increase in apprenticeship starts during the past five years, which I am sure she welcomes.

Steve Double: The Eden Project in my constituency has run a successful apprenticeship in horticulture for the past year. Horticulturalists will become more and more important in meeting our increasing demand for food. What support can the Minister provide to promote horticulture as a worthwhile career for young people?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are supporting the horticulture industry under the UK agritech strategy. Indeed, I recently opened a horticultural waste reduction facility. The horticulture sector is leading in the UK on low water, low plastic and low energy farming systems, and on novel uses of insects to avoid the use of pesticides and hydroponics. It is an innovative sector that is developing interesting careers and contributing to our growing agritech economy.

Angela Eagle: May I start by adding our best wishes and congratulations to Major Tim Peake, who will be the first British astronaut to visit the international space station, ahead of his Principia mission? May I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Helen Sharman, who was the first Briton to go into space? Let us all pledge to do our bit to inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, mathematicians and explorers, in the same way that the moon landings inspired my generation.
	Most businesses understand that nearly half our exports and 3 million jobs are linked to our membership of the European Union, and most believe, like I do, that it is in the interests of the UK to remain a member.
	Yesterday, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) described the Prime Minister’s negotiations as “froth and nonsense” and the Prime Minister’s approach to his endless renegotiations has been described today as a “shambles”. Does the Secretary of State agree with UK business or with the Eurosceptics on his side of the House?

Sajid Javid: I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about Major Tim Peake’s mission. It is an inspiration for us all and will hopefully get more young people interested in science.
	On the European Union, I agree with almost all the businesses I have met because they want to see reform. They want to see changes in our relationship with the EU. They want the EU to be more competitive, they want to be able to make easier, quicker and deeper trade deals, they want a deeper single market and they want less bureaucracy. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees with that too. That is exactly what we are fighting for.

Angela Eagle: We all want the UK to remain in a reformed European Union, but the Secretary of State’s Eurosceptic interests are well known. It is not like him to be so shy and timid about them, so let ask him more directly: is he prepared to resign from the Cabinet to fight for Brexit in the forthcoming referendum? If he cannot answer that question, how can he claim to be representing the interests of British businesses, which overwhelmingly want to stay in?

Sajid Javid: When it comes to divisions and resignations, it is her party that the hon. Lady should be worried about. I am prepared to fight for the reforms that I just outlined. Those are the reforms that everyone wants to see. We will fight for them tooth and nail, and then we will put the question to the British people and let them decide.

Nigel Huddleston: The Worcestershire growth fund will provide grants of up to £100,000 to businesses that are looking to expand and create jobs in Worcestershire. Will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging as many businesses as possible across Worcestershire to apply for the first round before the deadline this Friday?

Sajid Javid: In the short time that my hon. Friend has been a Member of Parliament, he has done a lot to champion small businesses in Worcestershire. I have seen that at first hand. The Worcestershire growth fund represents an excellent funding opportunity and I certainly join him in encouraging companies in his constituency and mine to apply.

Gavin Shuker: The illegal money lending team has commenced 330 prosecutions against illegal loan sharks and had £63 million written off for the most vulnerable in our communities. The decision to cut a third of its £3.6 million budget may not have crossed the Secretary of State’s desk at the time, but he has had plenty of time to review the decision and it will have a big impact, so why does he continue to dodge questions about this short-sighted cut?

Nicholas Boles: We are not dodging any questions. If the hon. Gentleman had attended Prime Minister’s questions last week, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say that he was looking at the possibility of introducing a levy to continue to fund this action against loan sharks. That is the Treasury’s policy to take forward and the hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Treasury if he wants further details about it.

Peter Heaton-Jones: A few days ago in North Devon, I met the new cohort from the Petroc College Care Academy, which has a unique programme providing part-time apprenticeships at the local healthcare trust. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them, and does he agree that it is an important programme for training the next generation of our healthcare professionals locally?

George Freeman: I absolutely join my hon. Friend, and I thank him for raising the matter. The Care Academy programme is doing great work, and Petroc College in his constituency is pioneering 18-week placement courses so that young people can discover the interesting range of careers in the health and care sector. It supports the local economy as well as our national skills base.

Carolyn Harris: Several organisations, including Electrical Safety First, welcomed the recent product safety review conducted by the Department and headed by Lynn Faulds Wood. We must work to prevent ineffective product safety recalls and improve traceability better to protect customers and business in the UK. When will the Department publish the review?

Anna Soubry: I have met Lynn Faulds Wood and I thank and commend her for her work. I will have a further meeting with her to see when we can publish the review and make the progress that we all want.

Michael Tomlinson: Will the Secretary of State update the House on the objectives of his recent visit to India, and how best local businesses in my constituency can tap into that market?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I will. The recent visit was to build on the momentum generated by Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit. Along with the Minister for Universities and Science, I went to India to promote getting more Indian students to come to the UK and study. I took 30 vice chancellors, including two from Dorset. That is just the kind of export that we want.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Last week, The British Chambers of Commerce downgraded its forecast for overall GDP growth, citing weaker than expected trade. On Thursday, the Office for National Statistics released data, which showed that the gap between imports and exports grew from £3.1 billion in September to £4.1 billion in October. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the measures that he is taking to support export growth, given that his current plans are clearly not working?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady knows that there has been export growth in the past five years, including to some of the fastest growing markets in the world such as India and China, which came up earlier. We obviously need to do more, and that is why we have several measures in place, some of which I have mentioned. Those kinds of changes, such as increases in exports, are leading to falls in unemployment throughout the country and generating jobs, including a 53% decline in jobseekers’ allowance claimants in her constituency.

Nicola Blackwood: As Tim Peake blasts off today, we are reminded again of the exponential value of science funding well spent. For that reason, the Science and Technology Committee intends to continue our work of testing science spending plans. Will the Business Secretary reassure the House that the welcome increase in science funding will be ring-fenced? Will he accept our invitation to appear before the Committee in January to go over that in detail?

Sajid Javid: First, I accept the invitation—thank you very much. I also take the opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for her leadership of the Science and Technology Committee and the way in which has made the case so well for science. I can confirm that the ring fence is protected in real terms, not just cash terms. I also confirm our manifesto commitment to spend £6.9 billion on science infrastructure over the next six years. I am sure that she will agree that, this Christmas, batteries are included.

Andy McDonald: I previously raised with the Secretary of State the Teesside Collective’s industrial carbon capture and storage ambitions, which will not only contribute massively to the climate change agenda, but secure existing industries and attract investment. In the light of the Paris agreement, will he meet me and industrialists leading that key initiative to explore how we might bring that important project to fruition?

Anna Soubry: I hope that I do not disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with him. He knows the terms on which we always have our meetings: not to shout at me. [Interruption.] Only in the House. I hope that he will join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on her outstanding achievement on behalf of our nation in playing a full and important role in securing the excellent way forward to ensure that the planet that we leave for our children will be better than the one that we inherited. Yes, I will have the meeting.

John Stevenson: As the Minister well knows, Carlisle and Cumbria have experienced devastating floods recently. As part of the recovery, it is vital that confidence is restored as quickly as possible, especially in the business community. Will the Minister confirm that she and the Department will do everything to support Cumbrian businesses, and wherever possible, ensure that people know that Carlisle and Cumbria are open for business?

Anna Soubry: Yes indeed, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and all Members of Parliament affected by this issue for their great work. I will go to that area on Tuesday, and I hope to visit Carlisle as well as Cockermouth, Kendal and Keswick if possible. I am delighted that we were able to secure £5 million funding for all businesses affected by the flooding, which will make a huge improvement. We have done that very quickly, and the money will be available quickly and—most importantly—in time for Christmas, so that all those businesses and shops can be open for businesses.

Iain Wright: The Secretary of State mentioned simplifying and clarifying the business environment in this country, as well as paring back bureaucracy and identifying a further £10 billion reduction in red tape over this Parliament. Why did the autumn statement propose that small businesses should file tax returns four times a year, rather than annually? Will the Secretary of State outline how that helps small businesses to reduce their costs and burdens? To keep the “Star Wars” quotes going, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

Sajid Javid: I have not heard that quote from “Star Wars”. [Interruption.] It is really important that we keep deregulating for small businesses, and that was achieved during the previous Parliament. As Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Gentleman knows that that measure is a net target, and because of the Enterprise Bill, and many other measures, I am confident that we will see huge net deregulation, running into the billions, for businesses over the lifetime of this Parliament.

Richard Fuller: The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee had a discussion this week about the phrase “industrial strategy”, which seems to mean all sorts of things to different people. I do not know what that phrase means, but I know that if I did, I would be against it. Will the Minister reassure the House that while he is Secretary of State, this Government will not go about picking winners?

Sajid Javid: Like my hon. Friend, the Government believe passionately in free enterprise. Free enterprise has motored this economy for decades, and it will continue to lift people out of poverty. We do have a strategy—it is called the long-term economic plan.

Stephen Doughty: I am sure that the space Minister will praise the foresight of the previous Labour Government who established the UK Space Agency. Given that Tim Peake’s incredible mission is launching today, will she say a little more about how she will spread inspiration from that mission to a budding generation of new space scientists, engineers and astronauts, including in Cardiff South and Penarth?

Anna Soubry: Tim Peake is going to the International Space Station, but I mentioned seven years because—as you know, Mr Speaker—I am not prone to partisanship, and I will always give credit where it is due. I wish that Labour Members would do the same.
	We have made huge progress to help great industries such as the steel industry, including our announcement on energy intensive industries, but I notice—let me get this point in when I have the opportunity, Mr Speaker—that nobody has mentioned that or said how good it is. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) are right to say how important it is that we inspire the younger generation—boys and girls—about great future career opportunities, especially in engineering.

Jo Churchill: Will the Minister update the House about life science clusters as a way to stimulate start-ups, excellence and growth in the sector? Does he have any plans to use devolution city deals for such clusters?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and around the country—not just in Cambridge, Oxford, and London MedCity, but in the Northern Health Science Alliance and the Scottish belt—the UK life science industry is building clusters of excellence and growth for the benefit of our citizens. I am holding discussions with the Chancellor and the Department for Communities and Local Government about how the devolution package could drive and support greater development of those health clusters around the country.

Jim Shannon: The Minister referred earlier to moneys that have been set aside by the Government for research and development in the aerospace industry. In my constituency, 6,500 people are directly employed by Magellan and Bombardier, and double that number are subcontracted. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can be part of that research and development?

Anna Soubry: I have not had those discussions, but I am more than happy to hold them with the hon. Gentleman—he knows my door is always open, especially to him. I recognise the huge importance of Bombardier, and the role that it plays in his constituency and the whole of Northern Ireland.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry but we must now move on.

Point of Order

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mr Speaker: Ah! The day would not be complete without a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me by telling me what can be done when the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is in my view not actually independent but very partial, is obstructing an MP from doing their work? My situation involves complex travel arrangements and IPSA is obstructing my travel movements. Is there anyone who is genuinely independent who I can deal with to get beyond the kangaroo issues of IPSA? I am wasting a lot of time and effort, as are my staff, in dealing with IPSA and getting absolutely nowhere.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am very disturbed to hear that. The hon. Gentleman might be aware—if he was not, he now will be—of the existence of an informal grouping within Parliament, which includes the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to which he could usefully make representations about the particular situation that he faces. I hope that he will understand that this is not something of which I can treat here and now in the Chamber.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mr Speaker: No follow-up would ordinarily be required, but the hon. Gentleman is champing at the bit and I will give him one last chance.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I was on that panel, with the honourable member for Gainsborough, during the last Parliament, but I am not aware of its continued existence in this Parliament.

Mr Speaker: My understanding had always been that there was an opportunity for Members to make such informal representations. The Chair cannot deal with specific cases at all, and the Chair is in no position authoritatively to comment on particular circumstances from the Chair, especially when given no advance knowledge of them. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he can usefully do so outside the Chamber.

Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Frank Field: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide local authorities with the duties and powers required to identify and automatically register all children eligible for free school meals; to provide for an opt-out where the family wishes; and for connected purposes.
	I grew up, as you did, Mr Speaker, and as did everyone in the House, in a world in which the term “progress” did not need to speak its name. It was the assumption of all of us that things could only get better. That was true not only in this Chamber and in the country but in every western society. I view the world that I grew up in rather like a train journey. The train had different compartments that reflected our social classes, particularly in England. There was a first-class compartment, as well as second, third and fourth-class compartments. The crucial thing about the train journey, however, was that we were all on board and all heading towards a better tomorrow. In the past decade or so, the last carriage, the fourth-class carriage containing the poor, has become detached from the train journey that the rest of us are on. That is happening not only here but in every western country, and it is illustrated by the rise of food banks.
	Last night, in each of our constituencies, a large number of children went to bed hungry and took that hunger to school with them today. To her credit, the Secretary of State for Education is concerned about this, and about the number of children who appear to be eligible for free school meals but are getting no hot meal at the beginning of the day. She has a taskforce that is trying to spread good practice, but we all know how long it can sometimes take for good practice to be spread.
	Bernard Shaw, being Irish, did not have a great deal of time for us English, except that England gave him a good standard of living. He said that if the English were promoted from inferno to paradise, they would still gather round and talk about the good old days. There is something in our culture that resists the spread of good practice. The reasons why those children go to school hungry are moderately complicated to unravel. Clearly, at the bottom of our society, there is an increase in the number of low-paid jobs, and the wages from those low-paid jobs are uncertain. The all-party parliamentary group on hunger has identified problems with benefit delivery. There are also problems—let’s face it—of families who lead such chaotic lives that they let their children go to school hungry when they have the resources to do otherwise. Some families do not do that, but clearly some families do.
	The Bill takes the campaign against hunger a stage further. It will compel local authorities to use their housing benefit data to counter hunger by identifying, first of all, the 160,000 children who are eligible for free school dinners but who, for some reason, do not claim. On average, that means that, in each of our constituencies, 250 children go hungry who probably do not need to do so.
	The last Government linked the school premium to eligibility for free school meals. Equally importantly, therefore, the Bill will mean that £211 million follows those 160,000 children into our schools, so schools will be better able to cope with hunger and better able to integrate those children on school trips with other children.
	Mr Speaker, your office tells me that, should the House grant me leave to introduce the Bill, Second Reading is not until 22 January, but already a record number of Members—126 Members from both sides of the House with all kinds of opinion—wish the Bill to proceed. Of course, it is in the power of the Secretary of State to beat the Bill and seek the powers herself. That move would not by itself bring a happy and more prosperous Christmas to those children, but it would form a basis so that, come the new year, there will be fewer hungry children in Britain than there are today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Frank Field, John Glen, Mr Philip Hollobone, Alison McGovern, Andrew Bridgen, Peter Kyle, Wes Streeting, Sir Nicholas Soames, Ms Karen Buck, Stella Creasy, Heidi Allen and Mr Christopher Chope present the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January, and to be printed (Bill 109).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[13th Allotted Day]

Climate Change and Flooding

Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move,
	That this House applauds the courage and tirelessness of the UK’s emergency services, Armed Forces and volunteers who are working day and night to protect people from the damaging floods; condemns the reckless cuts to flood defence funding made by the Government, which have left communities more vulnerable to extreme weather; notes that 600 people were evacuated from their homes in Hawick due to flooding, and hopes the Scottish Government will urgently invest additional funds to enhance flood protection schemes in Scotland; further notes the increasing frequency and intensity of storms in recent years and their consistency with the warnings of Britain’s leading climate scientists regarding the impact of climate change; supports the outcome of the UN COP21 conference in Paris, but recognises that international cooperation and ambition to reduce greenhouse gases and invest in clean energy technologies must be increased if global temperature rises are to be limited and the goal of climate safety kept within reach; expresses concern at the Government’s decisions to cut investment in carbon capture and storage technology, privatise the Green Investment Bank without protecting its green mandate, reduce funding for energy efficiency and solar energy and block the growth of wind energy, which all jeopardise the future of Britain’s important low-carbon industries; and calls on the Government to institute a thorough climate risk assessment that considers the implications of the Paris Summit for future flood risk.
	Although the climate deal reached in Paris at the weekend gives cause for optimism that the world is facing up to the global threat of climate change, the recent floods have brought home to us the urgency of the situation here in the UK. Climate change is already happening here, and people need not just warm words from the Government, but action.

David Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kerry McCarthy: May I get into my stride a little bit, and then give way? That was a premature intervention.
	For the people of Cumbria, these were the third major floods in a decade. In 2009, they were told that the rainfall was unprecedented and that it was a once-in-a-century event, and yet just six years later, rainfall records in the county were again broken, causing devastation and heartbreak in the run-up to Christmas.
	Flooding is already rated as the greatest climate change risk to the UK, and the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change has warned that the frequency and magnitude of severe flooding across the UK is only going to increase. Periods of intense rainfall are projected to increase in frequency by a factor of five in this century. Indeed, the most recent Met Office analysis suggests that global warming of 2°—bear in mind that Paris does not limit us to 2°—would increase the risks of extreme flood events in the UK by a factor of seven. It is not enough to respond to the flood risk simply by focusing on building more flood defences. We need to look at how we can reduce the risk through improved land and river management, and we need to minimise the future risk of floods and other extreme weather events by tackling climate change.
	We welcome the Paris accord. Nearly every country around the globe has committed to: reducing carbon emissions, building a carbon-neutral global economy, trying to limit temperature rises to 1.5°, and to reviewing our ambitions every five years. Richer nations are recognising their responsibilities to developing countries with the climate finance provisions. That is all very welcome and will make a positive difference to climate safety, but it would be complacent to suggest that the Paris accord on its own is enough.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Lady is making a strong case. As she will have heard from Paris, from civil society and from the countries that are most vulnerable to climate impacts, about 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground if we are to have a hope of avoiding dangerous climate change. We need a global transition to 100% renewables by 2050. I wonder if she could say whether she agrees with that.

Kerry McCarthy: It is very important that we make progress on that. As I will come on to later in my speech, the fact that the Government’s policies seem to be moving away from encouraging renewables—indeed, harming the renewables sector to a very high degree—makes it very difficult for us to make the transition from fossil fuels, which is something we very much want to see.

Angela Rayner: Does my hon. Friend agree that cuts to renewable energy threaten both our environment and the economy? In my constituency, Energy Gain UK is a successful local renewables business, which has grown from nothing in four years to having 10 staff and apprenticeships. The drastic cuts to feed-in tariffs mean it may be forced to close, which makes no sense either to the environment or to the economy.

Kerry McCarthy: I entirely agree. The renewables sector needs certainty and it has had the rug whisked away from underneath it. There is some incredibly innovative work being done. I visited Ecotricity in Stroud yesterday, to hear about Dale Vince’s proposals not just for building on his excellent work in the renewables sector but for going far beyond that. We must encourage the sector. This is where the high-tech, high-skilled, well-paid jobs of the future are and the Government ought to be doing more to encourage them.
	We must acknowledge that the individual pledges made at Paris do not add up to a commitment to keep temperature rises below 2°. We must keep asking what more we can do by way of mitigation and consider what further adaptation to climate change is needed. Domestically, it is clear that the UK is not doing enough. Contributing to the global climate fund does not mean the UK can absolve itself of all responsibility, or pass the buck to developing nations.
	While the international community is moving forward, the UK has gone backwards. The Government have axed the carbon capture and storage fund, worth billions of pounds. They have blocked new wind farms and cut energy efficiency programmes drastically by 80% and they propose cutting support for solar power by 90%.
	They are also selling off the UK Green Investment Bank without protecting its green mandate. They are increasing taxes on our more efficient cars and they are scrapping the zero-carbon standard for new homes. Their preoccupation with fossil fuels and fracking, as I mentioned, means they have threatened the future of our renewable energy industry and we have lost thousands of green jobs.

David Mowat: The hon. Lady says that the UK is not doing enough. Can she tell the House of one other OECD country that has reduced its carbon emissions by as much as the UK since 1990—just one other OECD country that has done that?

Kerry McCarthy: As the hon. Gentleman says, the UK has a proud record on tackling climate change, not least due to the leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) with the groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008. However, we are now coasting on that historical record and we need to do much more. We are not on course to meet our targets, so we need to do more.
	The chairman of the Committee on Climate Change had no alternative but to conclude last month that the Government’s existing energy policy was clearly failing, and the CBI has said that British businesses need clarity. Businesses need to know that the Government are serious about climate change and will not make superficial claims about being green, only to U-turn on key environmental policies.

Rebecca Pow: On clarity of Government direction and jobs, I understand we have to work together on renewables, but we are setting such a good example with Hinkley Point, on the border with my constituency, which is a low-carbon energy commitment that will generate 25,000 jobs, which will be terrific for the economy and energy production.

Kerry McCarthy: I accept that nuclear is part of the mix—that is our policy—but it is not the only solution to green energy in this country, which seems to be the Government’s point of view.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Whatever the solutions, one of the key conclusions from COP 21 is that, in order to drive down from 3.5° to 2.7°, 2° or 1.5°, the UK will have to reset its rest—as it has been phrased. We need to do more faster and with greater urgency, and that is exactly what Lord Deben and the CCC have said. Does she agree that, whatever the solutions, one of the most important things is for the Government to accept the fifth carbon budget and narrow the gap with the fourth carbon budget?

Kerry McCarthy: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is almost a consensus that the UK needs to do more, go faster and introduce stronger targets.
	Business needs certainty, but people in Cumbria and other flood zones need it too. Last week, I visited Carlisle and Cockermouth with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We are grateful to the councillors, business owners and residents who showed us around their communities and homes, and we left impressed by their resilience and determined that the Government must do all they can to rebuild their communities and reduce their future flood risk. They should never have to go through this again.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend, who is right about the need for certainty, will understand the concerns of many of the flood-affected communities that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot provide any certainty over future spending on flooding. Was she as shocked as I was to learn that this year’s flooding budget was £115 million less than last year’s? Is that not short-sighted of the Government?

Kerry McCarthy: I agree with my hon. Friend, as I often do. I want to say a little more about what I saw in the constituencies, and then I will answer his point.
	Anyone who has been to Carlisle and Cockermouth or seen the television coverage will have been dismayed at the horrific scenes. We have seen people out on the pavements with their entire belongings, people’s homes saturated, people in temporary accommodation. There is an issue with the availability of temporary accommodation in the area. Some have been lucky enough to move into holiday cottages, but there is not much in the way of private rented accommodation to move into. We spoke to people about their massive flood insurance bills, and the thing they raised with us time and again was the excess on their policies. Now that more floods have happened, their premiums are going to go up, or they might not be able to insure their homes at all.

Mary Creagh: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government’s new Flood Re scheme does not cover the insurance costs of businesses, and does she share my regret at the lack of solidarity in that scheme?

Kerry McCarthy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Small businesses mentioned that to us. The Government’s logic was that businesses could shop around in the market, but those that were hit by flooding in 2005 and 2009 and have been again now will struggle to find insurers. It is enough to put them out of business or at least force them to close for renewal and refurbishment for several months at a time.

David Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be incorrect to try to link these tragic instances of flooding to global warming because, as the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change says in its fourth assessment report 2007, it is impossible to link individual examples of bad weather with climate change?

Kerry McCarthy: I am not sure that was worth waiting for. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to talk to the Environment Secretary, who acknowledged in last week’s statement that there was a risk. Obviously, individual episodes do not make a pattern, but a clear pattern is emerging of extreme weather events in the UK and abroad.
	Between 1997 and 2010, flood defence spending increased by three quarters in real terms, but in the 2010 spending review, the coalition Government announced a 20% real-terms cut. Flood spending was slashed by £116 million in 2011-12 and again the next year, and it was lined up for further cuts in 2013-14, before floods in the Somerset levels forced on the Government the realisation that they had gone too far. After those floods, the Prime Minister assured us that
	“there will always be lessons to learn and I’ll make sure they are learned.”
	But he has not shown many signs of having learned those lessons. Last year, flood and coastal erosion risk management expenditure was above £800 million, but this year it has been cut to less than £700 million—a 14% real-terms cut of £115 million. How quickly those images of the Somerset levels faded from his mind.

Mary Creagh: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she share my regret that, although the Prime Minister said money was no object, as soon as the television images of the Great Western main line under water had faded from public consciousness, money actually was an object?

Kerry McCarthy: I entirely agree. It seemed that money was no object in the short-term clear-up exercise, although there were delays in people getting the money promised to them. The Government are trying to speed up that process this time, by giving the money to local authorities, but council leaders have raised concerns that they simply do not have the resources and staff for that administration. I hope the Environment Secretary will provide some clarity on that.
	Last week, the Environment Secretary was still assuring the people of Cumbria that the Government would learn the lessons, and the Prime Minister, on a fleeting visit up north, told them:
	“After every flood, the thing to do is sit down, look at the money you are spending, look at what you are building, look at what you are planning to build in the future and ask: ‘Is it enough?’”
	I am not convinced that it is enough. In June, the Committee on Climate Change gave flood adaptation a double-red warning, and the Environmental Audit Committee gave the Government a red card for climate adaptation. The Prime Minister did not have to wait for the floods to ask, “Are we doing enough?” The experts had already provided the evidence that we were not.

Caroline Flint: On learning the lessons, is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that about half of the Chancellor’s fast-track zones to build houses are on floodplains? It is estimated that 9,000 new houses built on these floodplains might be insurable because of the risk of flooding.

Kerry McCarthy: That is certainly an issue. Cockermouth has had planning permission approved for new houses, yet we have seen from the recent floods that the defences, which people thought were safe enough to withstand what was described in 2009 as a once in a lifetime or a once in a century event, were not good enough. The Government need to reassure me, therefore, that any defences around new housing in those areas would be sufficient to protect people and deal with the issue of insurance.

Andrew Stephenson: The hon. Lady is making an eloquent case about Cumbria, but did she take any time to visit Lancashire, because we have had really bad floods as well? In the same year that Labour-run Lancashire County Council has voted to increase councillors’ allowances—they now cost the taxpayer more than £1.2 million a year—it has admitted that the timescale for regular inspections of storm drains has been increased from every 12 months to every 18 months, which undoubtedly contributed to the flooding. Do local councillors not need to get their priorities right?

Kerry McCarthy: I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Lancashire, although during the floods I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) about the situation there. It is a bit cheap to bring in details of councillors’ allowances, when we are talking about people’s homes being under water and their perhaps being homeless for the next 12 months. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to speak to his Front-Bench team about the massive cuts they are imposing on local government before he starts raising such details.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree it would be worth the Government looking at local authorities running insurance systems, because high-risk properties would not be avoided and it might stop them building on floodplains, which they are still doing?

Kerry McCarthy: That is probably a question for the Environment Secretary to answer when she responds in a few moments.
	The Government have announced and re-announced that they will invest £2.3 billion in flood defences over the next six years. As the EFRA Select Committee has today highlighted, that investment relies on £600 million-worth of external contributions, less than half of which have so far been secured. With the private sector providing just £61 million, DEFRA is looking to local authorities for the additional funding. Clearly, the Government do not get just how hard local councils have already been hit by the cuts. At the moment, just one of the 27 flood and infrastructure projects is currently in construction, and there has been no progress in the past year, while schemes in Cumbria have been delayed.
	On maintenance, we have been told that the budget will only be protected, so I ask the Environment Secretary whether she believes that that budget is sufficient, especially given the years of neglect? The Government spent £171 million on maintenance last year. The Environment Agency has recommended that £417 million a year should be spent. It is no wonder that experts at Friends of the Earth are warning that there is a £2.5 billion hole in the Government’s flood defence plans.

Rebecca Pow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kerry McCarthy: I want to make some progress now so that Back Benchers who want to speak about what happened in their constituencies will be able to do so.
	Last week, the Environment Secretary agreed with me about the extreme weather patterns and the link with climate change. The Government have conceded that the risks might have been underestimated, yet it has now emerged that they are not even using the most up-to-date information. I hope that the Environment Secretary will be able to tell us why the Environment
	Agency’s flood risk guidance, published in 2013, is based on forecasts from 2006—despite new research in 2011 indicating that river flows could be much greater due to climate change. Flood defence plans are modelled on the medium climate scenarios rather than the high climate change pathway.
	Perhaps the Government want to ignore the high emission scenarios because that would mean spending £300 million more, but the costs associated with ignoring the evidence are potentially so much greater. The national security risk assessment cites flood risk to the UK as a tier 1 priority risk, alongside terrorism and cyberattacks. By focusing on the more optimistic projections, the Government are wilfully neglecting their responsibilities on climate change mitigation and adaptation.
	As the rest of the work acknowledged this weekend, simply ignoring climate change will not make it go away, yet for two years the UK was hampered by having a climate change denier as Environment Secretary. It is even rumoured that he sought to replace the words “climate change” with the word “weather” in every single DEFRA document, and that he had to have it explained to him that they were not quite the same thing. What is certainly true is that under his stewardship spending on climate change adaptation halved, even after DEFRA’s climate change staffing had dropped from 38 to six people.
	Thankfully, the current Environment Secretary is less hostile on this issue, although perhaps not very interested until now, and she will have our full support if her adaptation policies are guided by the scientific evidence and by expert advice. As such, we look forward to hearing more details on the national flood resilience review. I welcome the confirmation that the Cumbrian floods partnership will be looking at upstream options, and I hope these will be included in the resilience review.
	A focus on the role of the natural environment in reducing flood risk is, unfortunately, long overdue. I see in his place the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). His constituency was badly affected, and he did a huge amount of work on the ground in Cumbria over the past few weeks, so I am sure he has very much taken that point on board.

John Stevenson: Talking of national resilience, does the hon. Lady think it was a failure of the last Labour Government not to have done exactly the same in 2005? In Carlisle, for example, we have a sub-station in a floodplain area that was flooded in 2005. Fortunately, due to the hard work of the emergency services, it was not flooded in 2015, but should it not have been looked at after 2005 with a view to possibly moving it?

Kerry McCarthy: We commissioned the Pitt review. The hon. Gentleman mentions the work of the emergency services, and I would like to take the opportunity to say that when I was in Cumbria I met the Fire Brigades Union and Mountain Rescue, which have done fantastic work. There are calls for the fire brigade’s response to flood risk to be put on a statutory footing, rather than just an add-on to its other duties. Mountain rescue teams do wonderful work based on the voluntary contributions and the work of volunteers. I hope that that will be looked at as part of the review.

Margaret Greenwood: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that this is a timely opportunity to look again at the funding of fire services up and down the country? On Merseyside, we have certainly seen extreme cuts, and the whole model needs revisiting.

Kerry McCarthy: That issue was raised with me. I believe that five fire stations in Cumbria are due for closure. The control centre is in Warrington, but the point was made to me that local firefighters have the best local knowledge. People in Warrington were sending firefighters to places where people’s fire alarms had gone off because of rising water, but those firefighters knew that the towns and villages were already underwater and that the roads were impassable. A lot can be said for retaining local knowledge and for keeping the local fire stations open. I am sure that constituency MPs would have something to say about that.
	Flooding has had a devastating impact on farmers and many in Cumbria have, as the National Farmers Union highlighted, been hit by a double whammy, after being informed that they will not receive their basic payments until February. Given the losses they suffer as a result of flooding and the positive contribution farmers can make to land management, I hope that DEFRA will work closely with farmers to involve them in a long-term strategic approach to flood risk, looking at surface run-off and soil management to maximise absorbency and how the Government can promote agroforestry. Studies have demonstrated, for instance, that reforesting 5% of land reduces flood peaks downstream by 29%. The Government could be looking at sediment management and river restoration, as well as woodland development more generally.
	In urban and developed areas, sustainable drainage systems could make a positive difference, but progress has been slow and the scope for local authorities to make progress on flood risk management strategies seems limited, especially given the additional budget cuts. As the Climate Change Committee reported, many authorities are yet to finalise their strategies, despite its having been a legal requirement for the past five years. I hope that the Environment Secretary is co-ordinating cross-departmental work to manage the flood risk and ensure that it is factored into plans, including plans for new house building in areas of high flood risk, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned.
	In light of the agreements reached in Paris, I would urge the Environment Secretary to bring forward the climate change risk assessment and consider whether the national adaptation programme is fit for purpose. As the Committee on Climate Change has said, the next programme needs a “clearer sense of priorities” and “measurable objectives”. Even if commitments are met, the Paris agreement means that the Government must prepare for temperature rises of nearly 3°. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the announced national resilience review is only the first step in tackling the problem? It must lead to a realistic resilience plan—and, most importantly, action.
	As yet, we do not know what DEFRA needs to adapt to, because we do not know what the Energy and Climate Change Secretary is proposing in order to implement the Paris agreement in the UK. In her statement on Paris yesterday, there was little sense that the Government had any strategy—let alone a coherent, fully-funded one—to meet the UK’s climate change commitments and help the global community to keep temperature rises below 2°.
	The UN’s chief environment scientist has even had to intervene to challenge this Government’s policies on renewable energy. While the rest of the world is investing in renewables, she said:
	“What’s disappointing is when we see countries such as the United Kingdom that have really been in the lead in terms of getting their renewable energy up and going”
	withdrawing subsidies and enhancing the fossil fuel industry. We can only agree with her conclusion:
	“It’s a very serious signal—a very perverse signal that we do not want to create.”
	Under the last Labour Administration, the UK had a proud record on climate change—from Lord Prescott’s role with the Kyoto protocol and Gordon Brown’s work in establishing the Global Climate Fund to the role of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and indeed that of his brother before him, in the Climate Change Act 2008, which has now been emulated by about 100 other countries. It was ground-breaking at the time; we were the first.
	That legacy is slipping away and future generations will pay the price. Given that the right hon. Lady failed to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) yesterday, I hope the Energy and Climate Change Secretary will, when winding up the debate this afternoon, be able to confirm the Government will review the recently abandoned green policies and that the UK will continue to support raising European targets on reducing carbon pollution by 2030.
	It is not just on energy where we need leadership. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that there is more co-ordination with the Department for Transport, that BIS prioritises green jobs and that our financial services do not keep promoting and investing in fossil fuels? And will she stop the Chancellor from making short-term cuts to energy efficiency and renewables, ignoring the longer-term environmental, financial and human costs?
	Expert after expert is warning that the Government are failing on climate change, and failing to protect people from flooding. They are letting down communities who are dreading the next heavy rainfall, and they are letting down future generations who will bear the brunt of climate change. I hope that both Secretaries of State will agree that the Government have run out of excuses, and that now is the time to act.

Elizabeth Truss: The exceptional rainfall that we have seen over the past couple of weeks has led to some very distressing situations for families and businesses in the north of England, where serious flooding has occurred. It is right that we in the House use every opportunity we are offered to express our sympathy for those who are most deeply affected. It is also right that we pay tribute to the work of emergency responders—the Environment Agency, and volunteers from around the country—who have worked tirelessly to help to get people to safety, and to clean up quickly so that people can return to their homes as soon as possible.
	The Government mobilised a full national emergency response. We deployed the military from day one to protect people’s lives. The Cobra civil contingencies committee has met daily to co-ordinate the best possible deployment of resources for affected communities, and the recovery effort continues.

Margaret Greenwood: Have the Government considered applying to the European Union solidarity fund to help the people of the north-west, who have suffered so much? If an application were made, how quickly could the additional funds be made available?

Elizabeth Truss: Of course that is one of the options that we are considering, but it would take seven months for the money to arrive. What we have done, within a week of these terrible floods occurring, is make £51 million available to give immediate relief to households and businesses in Cumbria and across the north that have been affected. The Chancellor announced last week that we were supporting households and businesses in affected areas.
	The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked about accommodation. We are anxious to ensure that accommodation is available to those who have had to leave their homes, and we are working closely with local councils to ensure that they have every resource that they need for that purpose. Divers are assessing the bridges so that they can be opened as soon as possible, and diggers are clearing roads. We are doing all we can to ensure that Cumbria is up and running as soon as possible, and is open for business as soon as possible.

Tim Farron: The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that great efforts have been made to clear the roads. As she will know, the A591 connects the north and south lakes at Grasmere and Keswick, and its closure has effectively ruined the tourist industry on both sides of that divide. The Royal Engineers did a great job in clearing up the mess, but they left yesterday. Would the Secretary of State be able to invite them back to rebuild the road quickly?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The A591 is a critical artery for tourism and for local residents to get about. It is now passable in a 4x4 vehicle, but we are working on getting it fully up and running as soon as possible, and the Department for Transport is working closely with the Cobra team to ensure that that happens, because it is a priority. I am pleased to say that the west coast main line was up and running as quickly as possible. Nearly all the 169,000 households and businesses whose power was cut off have been reconnected, although a small group of fewer than 50 need extra work at flooded properties. The Environment Agency has been assessing what more can be done, and has been moving in heavy equipment to clear rivers.
	Our priority must continue to be public safety. Although 84 flood warnings have been removed in the last day or so, further flooding could occur as a result of rain falling on saturated ground. I urge people to keep up to date with the latest situation through the Environment Agency’s website and other news sources.
	I know that this is of no comfort to those who have suffered, but the flood defences in Carlisle and Kendal successfully defended more than 100,000 households and businesses and prevented them from losing their power supplies. It is important for us now to consider how we can further improve resilience in our country.
	The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is working to ensure that we have long-term energy security, and that we tackle dangerous emissions. I think that she has shown massive leadership over the past week. Hers was an historic achievement in Paris, and I think that Opposition Members should applaud her for showing such leadership at an international level. I see that some of them are acknowledging her leadership; that acknowledgement is particularly welcome from the former Climate Change Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

Graham Stuart: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for returning to the subject of flooding when she has—rightly—just moved on to the subject of climate change, but does she agree that it is now time for a radical change in the way in which we fund our flood infrastructure and maintenance? The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out that when floods occur, there is investment, there are promises, but the investment then fades. That happened under the Labour Government, and it tends to happen under all Governments. Should we not hand responsibility for a regulated standard to, for instance, the water companies?

Elizabeth Truss: We have already made a major change. Rather than allowing a stop-start in flood defence spending, we have, for the first time, laid out a fully funded six-year programme to give communities the certainty they need. I shall say more about that later, but I was in the middle of praising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She has done a fantastic job, and I think that that needs to be acknowledged. She has achieved an international climate change deal that will bring about a level playing field—it is very important for countries across the world to contribute—but she is also making sure that we deal with customers’ bills at home. It is right for us to improve our economy, achieve economic growth and reduce carbon, and my right hon. Friend is showing how that can be done.

Tim Farron: rose—

Elizabeth Truss: I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to contribute. I want to make a bit of progress now.
	Under this Government, there is a long term-plan for economic and energy security, part of which involves improving our resilience and investing in flood defences. Extreme weather events are becoming more common. There have been devastating floods in Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumberland and elsewhere, and there has been record rainfall. Water levels in our rivers have been more than half a metre higher than they have ever been before. Yesterday, during my second visit to Cumbria in a week, I went to Appleby and Threlkeld, where I met residents, Army volunteers, and others whose work has been tremendous during this rescue effort. I saw the sheer power of the water, which had washed bridges downstream, but I also saw a huge amount of spirit and resilience among the Cumbrian people.

Caroline Lucas: May I invite the Secretary of State to return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about maintenance grants, and the amount that will be spent on maintaining existing flood defences? Does she accept that there is a shortfall of £2.5 billion between that amount and what the Environment Agency says is needed, and, if so, is she going to fill the gap?

Elizabeth Truss: I can confirm that, as the Chancellor said in the autumn statement, we will increase our current maintenance expenditure of £171 million a year in real terms. In a climate in which we are having to reduce Government budgets, we are increasing, in real terms, both flood capital spending and flood maintenance spending. That shows where our priority lies.

Mary Creagh: In his report following the devastating 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt said that flooding was the greatest risk that our country faced from climate change, and that flood defence spending needed to rise by more than inflation each and every year. Can the Secretary of State explain why, in real terms, we will be spending exactly the same in 2015-16 as we were spending in 2009-10?

Elizabeth Truss: The reality is that between 2005 and 2010 Labour spent £1.5 billion on flood capital, whereas between 2010 and 2015 we spent £1.7 billion, which is a real-terms increase and not a cut. In this Parliament, we are investing £2 billion, which is a real-terms increase and not a cut.

John Woodcock: The question is: does the Secretary of State think that that is sufficient, given the recent events, and given the clear and growing link to climate change and its devastating effect?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The additional funding we are putting into flood defences will mean a reduction in flood risk over the next six years. That is not an elimination of risk, and we also need to make sure that we have the right emergency response in place, but flood risk will be reduced.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Elizabeth Truss: I just want to answer the point raised by Opposition Members about the spending in recent years. Following the 2013-14 floods, we put in an extra £270 million to repair and rebuild the defences that were destroyed. That is the money that Opposition Members are talking about, but even if we take account of that extra funding, which rebuilt and repaired defences after the winter floods, we are still spending more in real terms in this Parliament on flood defences, and we are laying it out in a six-year programme for the first time ever. When Labour was in power it never laid out plans for more than one year at a time, whereas we are laying out a six-year plan.

Caroline Flint: When the Chancellor was pulling together his fast-track zones for housing, whereby half the houses are going to be built on floodplain areas, did the Secretary of State have sight of that policy? Did she comment on it? If not, why not?

Elizabeth Truss: I will be very clear with the right hon. Lady: the Environment Agency is part of the planning process and it does not allow house building on floodplain areas—that is part of the planning process.

Rebecca Pow: The Secretary of State will remember not only the floods in Cumbria, but the awful flooding in Somerset. The Government have committed £35 million to Somerset until 2021, but will she comment on the arrangement we are putting in place through the Somerset Rivers Authority, which may become a model for dealing with flooding, funding and the wider catchment area?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right to say that Somerset Rivers Authority, which is now established, forms a model that we can use in other parts of the country. It gives local people, who understand the area and the local catchment, the power to make decisions—

Caroline Flint: rose—

Elizabeth Truss: I have already given way to the right hon. Lady once and I want to make progress, in order to give the many constituency MPs who are part of the debate an opportunity to speak.
	I want to respond to the Opposition’s point about local farmers, some of whom I met yesterday. We are helping them to get their land sorted out, as much of it is covered with rubble. We are putting in place a special scheme to help farmers, which will be open from this Friday, and we are also seeing what we can do to prioritise basic farm payments for the worst affected farmers.
	I have talked about our £2.3 billion programme—this is the first time ever that a Government have laid out their future flood defence spending. The private sector partnership money that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has been talking about is in addition to the real-terms increase—extra money so that even more flood defence schemes can go ahead. We have already secured £250 million of that money and we have a further £350 million earmarked. We are only six months into the scheme. Let us remember what happened between 2005 and 2010: only £13 million was raised. We raised £134 million in the last Parliament—10 times that raised under the previous Government.
	The money we are putting in represents real flood defences across the country. It means that in Boston we are building a new £90 million barrier; in Rossall, Lancashire, we are investing £63 million for a new 2 km sea wall; in Exeter, we are investing £30 million in new flood defences; and on the Thames we are investing £220 million in a 17 km flood relief channel. I am pleased to say that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol East we will invest £1 million in a scheme for Brislington, and that in Stockton North we are investing £8 million in a scheme at Port Clarence and Greatham South. What this money—this real-terms increase in spending—means is real protection for real families and real businesses across the country, in addition to protection for 420,000 acres of farmland.

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend knows that local MPs supported a proposal to the Department seeking about £1 billion to help the Humber area, which faces the second greatest strategic risk in the country, after London. What plans does the Department have to work on coming up with a viable programme for our area?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are investing £80 million in flood defences for that area, but I am happy to meet him and his colleagues to talk about what more we can do to increase resilience there.
	It is very important to note that we are not complacent about our flood defences. We will look at what has happened in recent weeks to make sure we learn lessons and act upon the new evidence that has come to light. We have committed ourselves to two reviews: first, the Cumbria flooding partnership, led by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for flooding, will look at how we can improve downstream defences, do more to look at the overall catchment and slow the flow upstream, and more fully involve the community. I saw a fantastic project last week at Stockdalewath, where upstream mitigation is being used to reduce the peaks in river flow. This is already happening, but I want to see more of it, which is why we are launching this new workstream. Secondly, we are putting in place a national resilience review to look at how we model and plan for extreme weather, how we protect our critical assets and how we make future investment decisions—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked about that. With the £2.3 billion programme that we have laid out, we want communities to have certainty that their projects are going ahead, so this review will look at future flooding investment to make sure that the formula is adapted to what we now know.
	Let me be clear with Opposition Members that we already have some of the most sophisticated flood modelling in the world. For the first time in Cumbria, during this flooding we used ResilienceDirect, which meant that all the emergency services could communicate with each other in real time and with the Environment Agency, which was very effective at getting early action. We are working to make sure that we keep up to date with the latest trends in climate and in extreme weather, which the hon. Member for Bristol East was talking about.
	The Government are completely committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure Cumbria and the other flood affected areas are up and running and more resilient for the future. But the reality is that without a strong economy, under a Conservative Government, we would not have money for these crucial schemes. It is our party that is investing in new power stations and making sure we have energy supplies, while reducing carbon emissions. It is our party that is investing to make this country more resilient and adapt to climate change and extreme weather. The Labour party has no plan, having shirked these decisions when it was in office and wasted our money. Let us all remember what the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
	“I’m afraid there is no money”.
	That was the Labour Government’s legacy. The fact is that it is the Conservative party that is protecting our economy, and safeguarding our security and our future.

Calum Kerr: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I should like to urge Opposition Members in particular to pay close attention to what I have to say. Unfortunately, the motion shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the reality on the ground in Hawick and the Scottish borders, which is my constituency and which suffered serious flooding earlier this month.

Tom Elliott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in my constituency in Northern Ireland there has been serious flooding in the past 10 days, and the motion makes no reference to that? Even today, at least 16 roads are still closed in the constituency.

Calum Kerr: That is an excellent point. My constituency is mentioned in the motion, yet it has not been mentioned once in the debate so far, and the hon. Gentleman has had the same experience. It is extremely disappointing that the motion makes a fundamental error in terms of the funding process for flood defences in Scotland. I hope to explain this and say why I make this statement up front.
	On 5 December the River Teviot broke its banks and it is true that some 600 people had to be evacuated in Hawick. A total of 333 homes were impacted, as well as 45 local businesses. However, the town reacted magnificently to the crisis. I was among the volunteers, along with the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Paul Wheelhouse, putting down sandbags under the direction of Hawick flood group, with the police and emergency services, who all did a fantastic job. The reality is that, had it not been for their help and intervention, things would have been a lot worse. I pay tribute to all their efforts, including Scottish Borders Council. We all know that our councils tend to be the whipping boys on occasion, so I pay particular tribute to it for co-ordinating the effort.
	The damage and disruption caused by the Hawick flood has been significant. The Scottish Government made it clear from the start that the Bellwin scheme would be implemented to fund repair work. They also emphasised that money was available to fund a full flood prevention scheme. A preferred scheme has been chosen, and we are now moving to detailed design. It is critical to get this right, as a wrongly built scheme can fail or even make things worse. This swift response has eased the worries of people in the town and shown the Scottish Government to be empathetic and fast acting.

John Woodcock: Just so that I am following the hon. Gentleman’s speech, is he saying that the Scottish Government have been exemplary and wonderful, and there is nothing else that he would ask them to do on behalf of his constituents in this important matter?

Calum Kerr: That is a wonderfully glowing tribute to everyone in my constituency. I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to listen a bit more, I will go on to explain the process in more detail. If anyone says that nothing can be learned, they are mistaken. There is always potential to improve the response and do better next time. The flooding that took place will be examined in detail, and will inform the flood defences that are put in place.
	Right across Scotland, there was a first-class and highly impressive multi-agency response. However, the stark truth is that we will never be able to stop flooding fully. It has been with us throughout history. Both the Old Testament and the Koran tell us the story of Noah and the Ark. I am afraid that there must have been people in Scotland and indeed in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) who thought they were extras in the sequel. As we cannot prevent water flows, we must do our best in redirecting them. In Scotland, all the flood defences we had in place held. In Galashiels in my constituency, they stayed in place, and in Selkirk, although only half built, they did their job. This highlights how well-designed schemes can make all the difference.
	The Scottish Government regard reduced flood risk as a priority and provide annual funding of £42 million for councils to add to and invest in major flood prevention schemes.

Patrick Grady: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is also an issue of urban flooding, which has perhaps been slightly less reported? Summerston in my constituency has been renamed an island because all the major access roads were blocked by sudden flooding and overflowing drains. It is important that local authorities are able to invest the money appropriately.

Calum Kerr: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. It is absolutely not just a rural challenge. The flood damage in urban areas is exacerbated by the concentration of dwellings.

Geraint Davies: I was in charge of flood risk management for Wales, so I know how important devolved Administration is in this respect. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the capture of water on buildings in butts to reduce the amount that goes into sewers or investing in the resilience of particular properties by putting plugs up walls, waterproofing and so on? No defence is 100% reliable.

Calum Kerr: The hon. Gentleman displays an admirable knowledge of the subject. If I ever live in a house built on a floodplain by the Conservatives, I will know where to go for advice.
	It is important to consider all aspects. The debate is about climate change and flooding, but many other issues such as land use and planning could be covered in a lot more detail. We must always plan to prevent flooding at a local level and mitigate where we can. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him.
	The Scottish Government enacted their Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act in 2009. This introduces a sustainable and modern approach to flood risk development which considers the problems of climate change. For instance, it creates a revised and streamlined process for protection schemes as well as a framework for co-ordination between organisations involved in flood risk management. New methods have also been put in place to ensure that stakeholders and the public have an input into this process, as is happening in Hawick now.
	Another hugely important piece of legislation is the Climate Change (Scotland) Act, again enacted in 2009. This sets some of the toughest climate change targets in the world, with an interim 42% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction target by 2050. Ministers are required to report regularly to the Scottish Parliament on progress and emissions. Earlier this year, the Committee on Climate Change concluded that Scotland had continued to make good progress towards meeting these ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are on track to meet that 42% target ahead of schedule. In fact, we continue to outperform the UK as a whole.
	In western Europe, only one of the EU15 states, Sweden, has achieved greater reductions. The Scottish Government have not hit all their targets, partly because of data format revisions, but they should be applauded for their ambitious vision and for seeking to lead the way. The determination is that Scotland should continue to be a world leader in this area. That, surely, is the right approach. We should acknowledge their ambition and successes so far. I hope that in this Chamber we will recognise that there is a lot to learn from them in terms of best practice. For instance, the Scottish Government have pledged some £1 billion of funding over two years for climate change action and have plenty of reason for optimism.
	Last year, renewables overtook nuclear as Scotland’s largest source of electricity. Only last month, wind turbines produced 131% of the electrical needs of Scottish households. These are highly encouraging figures. However, no nation can operate in isolation in this area. Only by working together can world leaders properly address this, the greatest global environmental threat of our age. At last week’s Paris summit, we finally managed to achieve a universal agreement—one that has been signed up to by rich and poor countries alike. I congratulate the Secretary of State on her role and hard work in securing success at that historic event, which was also attended by Scotland’s Environment Minister and First Minister. The deal reached will not by itself solve global warming. It is not a panacea. But Paris finally showed that the will, along with a firm commitment, is there.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman will know that emissions from aviation and shipping were left out of the Paris agreement. Does he agree that that is a fatal omission and, similarly, that airport expansion, be it at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere else, would fatally undermine the UK’s ability to make a fair contribution to keep global warming well below 2 °C, let alone the 1.5 °C goal that is a matter of survival for many vulnerable countries?

Calum Kerr: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. It is notable that the recent carbon report made the same point about excluding the contribution of air quality in this regard. We must start looking at the whole picture.
	Paris did, however, show that the will exists, along with a firm commitment. As long as the 196 nations which signed up to the declaration are prepared to prove that their word is truly their bond, we can look forward to a future that is bright and a future that is green. In Scotland, as in so many other countries, this agreement could literally reshape our landscape. At present, increasing rainfall and changes in patterns mean that our 50,000 kilometres of rivers are likely to flood more often. That could affect most of our major airports, which are on low-lying land, as well as places such as the petrochemical complex at Grangemouth. Rising sea levels also mean that some of our coastal habitats could be lost entirely.
	There is another effect. Climate change affects lungworm, a disease which affects sheep and renders their lungs unusable as food. I hope not to disturb my colleagues but sheep lungs are, of course, a key ingredient in haggis, which is central to Scottish culture. What would Burns night be without haggis? There could be a threat to our very nationhood! Hopefully, though, we can now avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change and the consequent risk to one of our finest native foods.
	Since the election in May, the SNP has argued strongly against UK Government moves to roll back support for renewable energy. Subsidies to onshore wind, solar and power station conversion to wood or biomass are being reversed, and green deal funding scrapped. I know that some of my colleagues plan to talk about this in more detail and about the Treasury’s decision to cut investment in carbon capture and storage technology, which is unwise and short-sighted.
	Some environmentalists say that we are now going through the worst period in green policy for 30 years. The need for positive and dramatic action stares us in the face. Climate change can no longer be denied. After Paris, every nation will have to be bolder. This offers us a real opportunity to change the direction of travel. It is the perfect time for Ministers to reverse their recent negative attitude towards renewables and, like Scotland, turn the UK into a leader. They must walk the walk. This is our moment of choice. We can, literally, turn back the tide. For us, and for our children and grandchildren, while there is still time, I implore this Government to help to do so.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, following as it does the excellent news from Paris and the rather more depressing news of recent flooding.
	I have just lost two of my favourite Ministers from the Front Bench—although they are staying for a moment—but I have another still on the Front Bench. I am delighted to have their temporary audience. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I congratulate our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on her part in helping to deliver a deal in Paris.
	Colleagues across the Chamber will doubtless debate how important and how effective that deal is and how it contrasts with Copenhagen, from which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) bears such scars. Despite much of the detail being left for future work, I think we have a framework from Paris which can give us hope for the future. The intended nationally determined contributions provide the building blocks with which we can go forward. We have in place in the agreement the promise of not only a stocktake, but a review and, we hope, a growth in ambition over time.
	Following Paris, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has two things to do. One is to ensure that UK decarbonisation proceeds within the framework provided by the Climate Change Act 2008 and the fourth and fifth carbon budgets—our most current—which have been produced by the Climate Change Committee. We have not always got it all right. For instance, in the case of onshore wind, which is the lowest cost form of renewable energy that we have, there was a misdiagnosis of the problem.
	The diagnosis of the problem, which people like me helped to provide over many years on behalf of our constituents, was that our constituents did not like having onshore wind turbines foisted on them, their local councillors ignored and a distant inspectorate insisting on them being built, resulting in our constituents losing any sense of control over the local environment. What local people wanted was to have control over their local environment. In those areas where there was least opposition, or where the recompense was adequate, onshore wind turbines should be allowed, but where local people were set on not having them, they should not go ahead.
	That was a mistake that Labour made in government. With various Ministers in place I tried to get them to see that we would ultimately end up with more if we went with the grain of local opinion rather than trying to fight against it, but inevitably those whose local environment would be dominated by those constructions and who had had no say on it would find a political voice and eventually bring the scheme to a halt. We would end up with fewer, rather than more, wind turbines. So it has proved.
	The misdiagnosis lay in the fact that my party came to the conclusion that the difficulty was not the planning, but the subsidy, even though it is the lowest subsidy of any form of renewable energy. So we got to the bizarre situation where there is no subsidy for the cheapest form of renewable energy, at the same time as we talk about lowering costs to consumers. We should have removed the right to appeal to the inspectorate and allowed the developers to provide packages which won support in certain parts of the country. Personally, I felt that we would have ended up with more, but somehow we have ended up with the cheapest form of renewable energy in effect receiving no support, which is a bizarre outcome. We do not want to make further such mis-steps.
	On the positive side, in my local area we have offshore wind. By next year we should have 6 GW of offshore wind in this country, more than the rest of the world combined. By 2020 we should have 10 GW and, as the Secretary of State laid out recently, as did the Chancellor in the autumn statement, there is every hope that we will see a doubling of that between 2020 and 2030.
	So we are making significant progress in offshore wind, and it is only because of the pipeline that we have seen the supply chain and manufacturers able to invest and lower cost.
	The big task for the Secretary of State is to work out how we are going to deliver decarbonisation of the UK economy at the lowest possible cost. It became apparent to me 10 years ago at the Montreal COP—conference of the parties—that we had to get the costs down. Sadly, hand-wringing environmental concern is not widely shared among the general populace of this country, among parliamentarians or across the world. We need to get the costs down so that it becomes more politically acceptable to people to do that which is compatible with tackling the risks suggested by the science.
	My advice to the Secretary of State is that in every decision she makes in this area, she needs to think about creating a framework which encourages that investment. The state is only a relatively small player. Sometimes Ministers of successive Governments in this country talk as if the state is the key driver. The state is not the key driver; it is a small player. We create the framework, then we get the investment. It is that investment in solar by private companies in China and elsewhere, partly driven by the German market, that has led to the massive reduction in costs for solar. It has been the private sector investment, with the help of the Green Investment Bank, which has helped accelerate the cost curve downwards for offshore wind. That is what we must do—create a consistent environment.
	There was a lot of positive rhetoric under the Labour Government about tackling climate change, but remarkably little action. In the end, in 2010, there had not been the progress that we should have seen. In the United States, by comparison, the rhetoric has always been negative but the policy environment for investment has been more positive. That is why there has been a great deal of investment in the United States, as well as more innovation and more jobs created than in this country, even though we, through the Climate Change Act and other things, have tried to be, and appeared to be, world leaders.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman’s comments pass without intervening, but I will try to say this on a cross-party basis. The success in offshore wind, which is now quite remarkable and we need to keep it going, was built on the back of the pipeline that was set up during the period of a Labour Government. That Government—I was an Environment Minister at the time—put in place things such as the £60 million investment in the ports facilities that is now allowing Siemens to carry out manufacturing in this country, and gave the go-ahead for the licensing.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right to make those points. Quite a lot of the progress that has been made in the past five or six years was built on that, but in the 13 years of Labour Government remarkably little progress was made. If we compare the investment environment in renewable and other green technologies in the United States, despite all the negative rhetoric, with the investment there has been in this country, we do not come out all that strongly.
	The second challenge that faces the Government, after UK decarbonisation, is helping others to fulfil their national contributions to the INDCs and to build confidence at each national level to go further. Thus, when we have the review in five years’ time, we will be able to raise the ambition so that we are not heading, as now, for under 3°, but are genuinely able to head for a sub-2° world. There is a tremendous amount to be done in engaging with parliamentarians. I should declare an interest as the chair of GLOBE International. Colleagues from across the Chamber attended the summit of legislators in Paris the weekend before last. We need to engage more with parliamentarians. That is equally true in Parliaments such as ours where, despite today’s attendance, there are remarkably few colleagues with much interest in or knowledge of the subject matter. We have to engage more people so that they take more interest and ensure that we get the frameworks that deliver the investment. There is a huge role for the UK to play in developing countries through climate diplomacy and work with GLOBE and others to make sure that we engage with these parliamentarians, who, after all, pass the laws, set the budgets, and hold Governments to account. That is certainly what GLOBE aims to do through its chapters around the world.
	I want briefly to say something about flooding, following my earlier intervention on the Environment Secretary. The threat to the Humber is real and growing, with rising sea levels. Last December, we saw a bigger surge than in 1953. If the wind direction and other factors had been slightly different, there would almost certainly have been loss of life. This is a growing issue and we need to find a long-term solution. My personal thought is if we leave it to Governments, who have to decide between investment in schools, hospitals and so on, and long-term investment in flooding, they always have a tendency, when not under the shadow of a recent flooding disaster, to cut back that long-term investment. Would it not be better to set a regulatory standard on which we could rely by handing it over to water companies, whose job is to borrow money from the international markets and invest for the long term at the lowest possible cost, to deliver an agreed standard? If we had a statutory standard with a duty placed on those bodies to deliver, and all the water tax payers of the country picking it up, we would not only save the Chancellor from the cost hitting the Exchequer directly, but could have in place lower-cost intervention, to an agreed standard, for the long term, and stop having these fervent and heated debates every time we have a flood disaster, which, given climate change, is likely to happen more often in future.

Ed Miliband: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who plays a very important role in the GLOBE organisation of parliamentarians. This debate comes at a timely moment after the Paris agreement, and after the tragedy of the floods that we have seen. I know that many hon. Friends want to talk about the effects on their constituencies, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief.
	I want to focus on the question of what the Paris agreement means for UK domestic policy. In doing so, I praise the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who played an important role in the talks. She was the host of the high ambition coalition between developed and vulnerable countries, and her office was its headquarters. She deserves credit for the very constructive role that she played. Having said that, when I listened to her statement yesterday, I felt, while I do not want to be unfair to her, that her position was somewhat to say, “Everything has changed and nothing has changed.” In other words, internationally everything has changed, with high ambitions, zero emissions and all that stuff, but for the UK things are the same as before. I want to make the case that that cannot be right, for four reasons, three of which are to do with the agreement itself.
	First, on 1.5°, no previous agreement has enshrined a commitment to try to commit to
	“efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 C.”
	This is a higher ambition than there has been in any agreement before. The Secretary of State knows that, because she was one of the people who helped broker the agreement. The reason it was brokered is very interesting: it was because of the case put forward by countries like the Marshall Islands that will disappear with warming of more than 1.5°. Some people fear that the high ambition coalition was a ruse to break up the G77 and China grouping in order to put pressure on the Chinese to get an agreement. I do not believe that it was a ruse. However, we cannot just say, “Our domestic policy will not change,” because if we suggest that our attitude to a 1.5° agreement is the same as to a 2° agreement, countries like the Marshall Islands will conclude, “Hang on a minute—were these people serious after all?”
	The Committee on Climate Change picked up on this point in its release yesterday, saying that it would make it even more important—I am paraphrasing somewhat but I do not think I am misrepresenting it—that we met its recommendations on carbon budgets, and that it might be the case that further steps should be taken. It said that it would come back to the Secretary of State on that in early 2016. I would be interested to hear what she thinks are the implications of this more exacting target—because it definitely is more exacting.

Caroline Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case, which I appreciate. Surely the difference that 1.5° makes means that we need to think again about aviation expansion. In yesterday’s aviation statement, which came right after the climate statement, nobody even mentioned climate, and yet aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Ed Miliband: When we were in government, I played one part in the rather unhappy saga that is Heathrow. In response to the demand that we should approve Heathrow, I pushed for a separate target for aviation emissions. Of course that must also be looked at as part of the 1.5° target. There cannot simply be unconstrained expansion of aviation. The hon. Lady makes a good point.
	Secondly, the agreement contains not just the 1.5° aim but a long-term goal of zero emissions. When I asked the Secretary of State about this yesterday, she said that she was happy pursuing the existing targets in the Climate Change Act. I think that those targets are very important, because I helped legislate for them, and I am very happy that she wants to make sure that we meet them. However, when I was Climate Change Secretary we had not had a global agreement for net zero emissions. We cannot possibly say, “We’ve got this global commitment to zero emissions in the second half of the century but it has no implications for UK domestic policy.” Of course we have to look at what it means for the UK.
	My case to the Secretary of State, which I hope she will consider—I am not asking for an answer today—is that when the Energy Bill comes back to this House in the new year she amends it to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something very simple, which is to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Government about when we should achieve zero emissions. That would do a number of things. It would send a cross-party message that Britain is determined to be a climate leader; the Secretary of State has talked eloquently about the impact that the Climate Change Act had, with cross-party support. It would also reduce, not increase, the costs of transition, because it would provide a clear trajectory to business and, indeed, to future Governments.
	I say to Conservative Members, who have understandable concerns, that it would be supported by business. I am not the most radical person on this issue. The most radical people are, believe it or not, Richard Branson, Paul Polman of Unilever and Ratan Tata. They want not just what I am suggesting, but something much more radical—they want zero emissions by 2050. Perhaps that is what the Committee on Climate Change will concede, but my approach is much more pragmatic, as is that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). Let us not pluck a figure out of the air—such as 2050—without having the experts look at it; let us look at what the implications of the global goal of zero emissions are for the UK. That is a very reasonable suggestion.

Graham Stuart: I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has just said about aiming for zero carbon. Does not the involvement of Unilever, Virgin and other businesses show that, if leadership and certainty is given, the investment conditions will be such that we will be able to get the money flowing, as I said in my speech, and jobs will be created here? If we lag behind with uncertainty, we will not have those jobs, and pioneering businesses will not establish themselves, invest or provide jobs here. If we are going to do it, it must benefit this country to the greatest extent possible.

Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point. Every extra ounce of uncertainty raises the cost of capital. He and I have discussed that many times and that is what business people are saying, because they want that certainty. They are asking, “What are we working towards?” That is why all those leading businesses are putting it forward.
	I do not want to say to the Secretary of State that this is easy, because it is a long way off, but it is an easy win for her. She would go down in history as the person who helped legislate for zero emissions, which is the ultimate backstop. When I was Secretary of State, the ultimate backstop was 80% reductions. Now we know from the global agreement that the ultimate backstop must be zero emissions at some point.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s specific policies to tackle CO2 emissions. In the US, fracking is credited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being the principal reason for the reduction in greenhouse gases. Does he support shale gas exploration in the UK?

Ed Miliband: I am sceptical that it is the solution, because we have to get to zero carbon. It is true that replacing coal with gas has helped us reduce emissions. One of the reasons that our emissions have fallen as they have is the replacement of coal with gas, and I welcome the Secretary of State saying that she is going to phase out coal, but that is not a long-term solution. This agreement is about the end of fossil fuels. Carbon capture and storage can make a difference, but essentially we are transitioning to a world after fossil fuels.

David Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if we are going to use wind power or solar, we have to have CCS, as National Grid has said; otherwise, we will not be able to match grid demand?

Ed Miliband: Certainly. While we are on the subject of sorry sagas, I am afraid that one of the other sorry sagas is the CCS competition, which is a recipe for how not to make policy. It was started, believe it or not, nearly 10 years ago by the Labour Government. I think it was started under Alistair Darling. I then pushed it forward before this Government cancelled the competition, then restarted it and then cancelled it again.

Callum McCaig: It has been an incredibly sorry saga, but I do not think that the previous Labour Government can have anything positive to say about CCS, given how badly they treated it when it was going to be introduced at Longannet.

Ed Miliband: I am not saying it is glorious from anyone’s point of view. What I put in place was a mechanism to provide four projects. At the time, the Conservative Opposition said, as Oppositions do, that four was not enough and that there should have been six. Then they cancelled the mechanism, then they said there would be public funding, then they cancelled that competition and then they restarted it. I think we can all agree that it has not been a glorious episode.
	The third reason that I think the world has changed is the five-year ratchet mechanism in the agreement. It is a mechanism to ratchet up ambition so that the pledges that countries make meet the aspiration. At the moment, we are saying 1.5 °C, but the pledges add up to 3 °C. We argued for the mechanism and the EU said before the summit that it wanted its emissions to be reduced by at least 40% by 2030. As I understand it, “at least” meant that if there was a stronger agreement, we would ratchet up the EU ambition. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government: what is the mechanism to make that happen? The world has changed, because we have a strong agreement, and the EU said at least 40%, so how are we going to ratchet it up? In his closing remarks at the summit, President Hollande said that he wanted to raise French ambition. I would be interested to hear the Secretary of State say, either today or in the future, how she thinks we can raise that ambition.
	A fourth and final thing has changed since Paris, and it relates to the Secretary of State and her role in Government. I want to say something personal to her about that. I think that the thing that has changed after
	Paris is her negotiating power. Anyone who has been a Secretary of State knows that not all the decisions go their way—that was certainly true when I was Secretary of State. I am sure there have been a number of times over the past few months—obviously, the Secretary of State is not going to say this at the Dispatch Box—when she wanted a decision to go one way but it went another way. Successful Secretaries of State, however, recognise their power, and I say to her that she is empowered by the Paris agreement. She is empowered by it to tell the Prime Minister that he cannot just use warm words abroad and then not follow them through with deeds at home. She is empowered to tell the Chancellor that British business is, frankly, furious at the neglect of a crucial and growing sector of the economy. Above all, she is empowered to be the Cabinet champion for tackling climate change. If the Secretary of State does that—if she is that champion—she will get support from those Members on both sides of the House who believe in this cause, as I know that she does, too. They will support her in her endeavours.
	In conclusion, whatever the Secretary of State does, we need to match the high ambition coalition in Paris with a high ambition coalition at home. That high ambition coalition has to combine trade unions, business and civil society. I do not see Paris as the end in any sense; it is merely the beginning—it gives us a new beginning on climate change. In the interests of future generations, we have to seize that moment.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. This is a short debate. Lots of people want to speak, so I have to impose a time limit of five minutes.

James Heappey: The motion conflates two hugely important issues, both of which are worthy of debate in their own right. I will speak initially about flooding and if time allows I will move on to climate change.
	Somerset is affected by both elements. We have very recent and painful experience of flooding, and we have a well developed energy industry, with everything from Hinkley Point to widespread deployment of solar and anaerobic digestion. We also have the opportunity for much more, if we can harness the power of the Severn estuary.
	On flooding, after speaking about our experience in Somerset at this year’s Flood Expo, I have been visited in Parliament by representatives of the Lincolnshire drainage board and the National Farmers Union, who were keen to discourage a one-size-fits-all approach to flood risk management and its funding. Cumbria has its own circumstances, just as Somerset is different from Lincolnshire, so I stress that, while I fully support the measures being delivered in Somerset, some—perhaps all—will not be applicable elsewhere. That said, the speed of the full spectrum response in Cumbria indicates that lessons have clearly been learned since our floods in 2013-14. I congratulate those on the Government Front Bench on the speed of that response and commend the emergency services, armed forces and volunteer groups that answered the call.
	I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) reflect in her opening speech that the Government have not delivered on their commitment to Somerset after the floods. Labour does not have many south-west MPs, but she is one, so surely she must know that huge improvements have been made in our region since those floods. Work on the great western mainline at Dawlish was completed within months of the floods, and the peninsula rail taskforce has since made clear, as I am sure she well knows, its plans to improve resilience both on the Somerset levels and with a new line to open north of Dartmoor.
	On roads, work to improve culverts underneath the M5 has been completed, and Somerset County Council has also completed widespread improvements to the county’s road network. There has also been significant investment in pumping infrastructure, dredging and the sluice network, and Sedgemoor District Council and the county council are pushing on with advanced plans for a Parrett tidal barrier. There was public money for flood relief for the villages impacted, and most importantly, there is the Flood Re scheme, which will provide real peace of mind for those who can now insure their homes. Above all, there is the support for the Somerset Rivers Authority, a very welcome strategic authority which looks after the interests of the county when it comes to flood defences.
	All of that is happening just four junctions down the M5 from Bristol East. I am sure that if the shadow Secretary of State would like to come and see me, my fellow Somerset MPs and the leadership of Somerset County Council, we would be delighted to show her how much the Government have achieved in Somerset and how much more they are yet to deliver. None of that has been cheap, so I very much welcome the £2.3 billion that will be invested in flood defences over the next six years.
	In the very short time remaining, I want to say that I very much welcome the Paris deal. The Energy and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member, looks forward to discussing it with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change tomorrow. The deal is not perfect, but it is a remarkable feat, and I congratulate the Government on the leading role they played in brokering the deal. Meeting the Paris targets will be challenging, especially as we must concurrently ensure the security of supply and the affordability of bills.
	The programme for new nuclear power is very welcome, but I also congratulate the Government on their enthusiasm for offshore wind and on their success in growing the solar industry in recent years, although I appreciate that changes in the subsidy later this week may challenge that industry. The solar industry is protesting very loudly, but the Government say that the subsidy has become a crutch and the industry is now ready to go it alone. I very much hope that the Government are right, because there are a great many jobs in the solar industry in the south-west that I want to continue.
	Finally, I very much welcome the Paris announcement. The Government have a real challenge in ensuring that we achieve the right domestic policies to achieve the aims, while maintaining our security of supply and keeping bills down. There are plenty of opportunities, not least on generation, but my personal interest is very much in achieving greater management of demand, which I hope the Government will pursue.

Caroline Flint: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), although it is saddening how often during the past few years so many Conservative Members have had to stand up to speak about the terrible floods that have impacted on the communities they represent. It would be remiss of us if our discussion did not begin with a thought for the people of Cumbria and for others across the UK who are facing a second flooding in just six years, many of whom will spend Christmas away from their own homes.
	In its latest report on adaptation progress, the Committee on Climate Change rated planning for residual flood risk to existing properties at red, both in terms of the plans in place and actual progress. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted during her response last week, the models that we currently use need updating. I will make two points about that.
	First, many people are sick and tired of being told that the floods that have wrecked their homes are one-in-100-year events, given that the severe floods we have seen during the past 10 years suggest that such erratic weather will be far more frequent than once every century. If the Government and all of us are to learn anything from that—I hope we can work on a cross-party basis on these issues—it is that the patterns of weather in the past century are a poor guide to future risk, so we must ensure that the new models we need take that into account or the public will gain false comfort about their own security.
	Secondly, the Government must work across Departments. It is very worrying that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs failed to answer what I thought was a very common-sense question: “Have you had a discussion with the Chancellor about the zones that Ministers are fast-tracking for housing development?” I believe we need more homes—do not get me wrong on that—but we really must have a joined-up policy across the Government if we are to make progress both on housing and on limiting the risk to our communities. I found it very worrying that she failed to answer that question, but perhaps the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will return to that point in her summing up. On that area, as on climate change, if we can find a better way to work together—this is not to say there should not be scrutiny—I know that Labour Members would want to work not only to make the future better, more secure and brighter for ourselves, but to show leadership in the world.
	That brings me to Paris. Many positive things have come out of the Paris agreement. Whatever the importance of using “should” rather than “shall” or “shall” rather than “should”, we still have an unprecedented, universally binding deal that aims to limit the temperature rise to beneath 2 °C degrees and to make efforts to stay below a 1.5 °C rise, which is very welcome. Progress has been impressive. I have to commend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary for her work on this; I must also commend our French colleagues, who despite everything that has happened in France recently, managed to hold a vital conference for the world and to produce such a good result.
	As we stand, however, the UK does not have the policies in place to deliver either the UK’s 2020 renewables target or its fourth carbon budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, the Government’s recent “reset” contained little to help us get there. I want the UK to develop a credible plan to deliver the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 that our groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008 requires. That is important in itself, but it is also a stepping stone or a foundation for moving towards net zero emissions.
	In the limited time I have left, I want to say this: net zero is a huge ask. As Paris demonstrated, the world is a long way from that 2050 aspiration of 80%, and even further from that of net zero. We must therefore begin work on what a net zero carbon society should require. We must look at the research and engage scientists and engineers to make this a reality. If I learned one thing during my time as shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change it was that my job was not just to talk to the converted, but to convince those for whom this is not top of their agenda that it is the reality for them, and is something of which they can be a part and from which they can benefit. Let us get down to the practicalities and, across the House, make this happen.

David Mowat: I do not have a direct constituency interest in this subject, but I want to talk about Paris. It is a pleasure to follow the last two Labour speakers, the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Much as I commend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for the work she has done, I am afraid that my analysis of Paris is not quite so sanguine as the opinions we have so far heard.
	It is not true that the INDCs add up to a 2.7 °C limit. That analysis is somewhat dishonest because it is based only on contributions continuing further on a basis to which countries have not committed themselves. The right hon. Member for Don Valley called Paris a “universally binding” agreement, but it is not binding on anybody. That does not mean it is not a good start, and we have to start somewhere, but the fundamental point is that if the world had adopted the Climate Change Act in the way the shadow Secretary of State said, we would be on track for a rise of 1.5 °C. The United Nations framework convention on climate change says that to get to the limit of a 1.5 °C rise the world must reduce carbon emissions by between 75% and 90%, while the Climate Change Act states 80%. A fair challenge would be that developing countries find it much harder to do than developed countries. I accept that China, India and such countries need more slack, so the implication is that we perhaps need to go further, which is where some of the right hon. Lady’s numbers come from.
	I want to spend the minutes available to me in analysing the performance of the developed countries at Paris, and particularly of the EU. One of the most startling factors about the INDCs that were put into the mix in Paris is that the EU submission for a 40% reduction over 40 years—1% a year, as it were—is 33% slower than the reduction demanded by the Climate Change Act and its resulting budgets. That is not all, however, because if we take out the UK bit of that EU INDC, the implication is that the rate of reduction will be between 40% and 45% slower than that for the UK. That is odd: what do other EU countries find so difficult about reducing emissions that we apparently do not find difficult? Parts of the EU are developing, relatively speaking, because they are catching up in terms of GDP. It might be reasonable for countries such as Poland and Romania to be given more slack. However, the truth is that countries such as Romania have made the most rapid reductions, so that is not the issue. Romania has made big reductions, because the 1990 baseline coincided with a period when its industry needed to be sorted out.
	The issue is in the developed countries such as Austria, which has increased its emissions by 20% since 1990, and Ireland, Holland, Spain and Portugal, none of which have reduced their emissions since 1990. The House has criticised the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for a lack of ambition, yet we are part of an EU submission to a global conference that puts up with that kind of thing. I ask her to address why that can happen and what sanctions there are on those countries within the EU aegis that can stop it happening.
	There are reasons why it is happening. Some countries have banned nuclear power. Some have banned carbon capture and storage. It is not that they have just not invested in it—it is illegal in some countries. CCS is illegal in Germany and it is building brand new unabated coal power stations. Its emissions are a third higher than ours per capita and per unit of GDP.

Graham Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Mowat: Yes, thank you.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wonder whether he could expand further on the points he is making, because I am finding them most interesting.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend is always a team player. The extra minute will be put to great use.
	The EU, taken collectively and not including us, failed abysmally to put forward at Paris anything close to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster North said, probably rightly, would need to be delivered to achieve 1.5°. We have to understand what the sanctions are for that, but the reasons are many and varied.
	The EU got completely bogged down, as Members of this House sometimes do, in a fixation with renewables and renewables targets, rather than thinking about a carbon reduction target. Countries have put in place considerable renewables, but continue to burn coal at scale. The truth is that if we replaced coal with gas globally, it would be equivalent to increasing the renewables in the world by a factor of five. There are many points like that.
	The fundamental point, which the Secretary of State will have to address in her high-ambition coalition, which presumably does not contain Austria, is that we must ensure some fairness. Otherwise, places such as Redcar and Motherwell will have to get used to what has happened to those places, and that really is not right.

Tim Farron: Colleagues from all parts of the House are rightly praising the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for her role in Paris. I do not have time to go into that at great length, except to say that she did indeed play a blinder, as did this country as a whole. However, it is very difficult to stack up her signing the agreement in Paris with her slashing subsidies for renewables, ending the green deal and privatising the green investment bank. The Secretary of State is perhaps, if she will forgive me, the José Mourinho of environmental politics—impressive on the international stage, woeful domestically.
	Climate change is clearly not an esoteric matter, although some would consider it to be so. The impact on my constituency, throughout my county and on other places is very real. The impact on the families who will be out of their homes at Christmas—the hundreds upon hundreds of children who are not able to look forward to Christmas at home—is utterly heart-breaking. I want us to think, first and foremost, about the human cost. Among the things that I am seeking from the Government is additional support for Cumbria’s health and social services to support mental health provision and counselling for people in desperate, desperate need.
	I praise the response not just of the emergency services, which have been absolutely fantastic, but of organisations such as Kendal Cares and the churches in the south Lakeland area. The response can absolutely reassure us about human nature, as people who had lost almost everything went next door to help people who had lost absolutely everything.
	The scale of the floods needs to be put in a numerical sense. PricewaterhouseCoopers reckons that the cost of the floods to Cumbria is £500 million. Therefore, the Government support of £50 million, although welcome, is clearly nowhere near enough. In the few moments available to me, I will set out why we need additional support and ask for it.
	There are some who will dismiss people who are uninsured or underinsured as feckless. They are not feckless; they are penniless. Very often, these are people who could not afford insurance in the first place or who could afford only insurance that was cheap and, therefore, inadequate. There are many people who live in areas that flood regularly and who, therefore, could not get coverage in the first place.
	The £500 grants from the Cumbria Community Foundation are utterly welcome and I praise it, but £500 will not get people far if we consider what we would lose if the ground floor of our homes flooded—all the white goods and all the other things we need to make life possible. We need support so that the £500 can be increased significantly.
	We need to recognise that the £5,000 per household that the Government are promising is for flood prevention in the future, not to help people who have lost significant amounts of money right now. That money should be delivered to people in Cumbria right away and directly.
	I reiterate my comment about the A591. To those who heard the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say earlier that it was passable in a 4x4, I say that I was there yesterday and it could just about be passed on a bicycle. It is not true.

John Stevenson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the priorities in the long run, beyond the work on the A591 and Pooley bridge, must be to invest in and renew our road infrastructure in Cumbria?

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He is doing an excellent job for his constituents in Carlisle. He is right that the investment now will help the county in the long run. I ask the Government to invest in making sure that the A591 is rebuilt and reopened in a matter of weeks, not months, because the current situation is devastating for the local economy.
	There is also a plan on the table from Cumbria Tourism that the Government need to provide funding for right now. There is a short-term, immediate strategy—as in, today—to boost the economy up to Christmas through a marketing campaign and a medium-term campaign to make sure we get back on our feet.
	Other parts of the Lake district have been hugely hit. The village of Staveley has been cut in two by the closure of its bridge. Again, we need support for that in weeks, not months. Likewise, the bridge that connects the two communities at Backbarrow, which was lost six years ago in 2009, is closed again and needs investment straight away to make sure it is reopened.
	It is important that people get the message, and that the Government get out the message that Cumbria is open for business. I was in Grasmere yesterday. I cannot think of a more Christmassy place to be at this moment, but equally I cannot think of a quieter place. People are not going there because they think the place is closed. It is not. Please go there. Please will the Government get the message out that that is what people need to do?
	I have a quick note about farmers. I am very concerned that the Government are planning to close the Lyth valley pumps in June. I was there yesterday and we cannot allow that to happen. Will the Government commit to funding the pumps beyond the end of June? Will they also commit to help farmers who have lost stock in tragic circumstances up and down the county? They must recognise that much of the money that goes into keeping the Lyth valley dry is about protecting infrastructure, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) mentioned. The A590 is often flooded as a consequence of that farmland not being drained, so the pumps are important for infrastructure too.
	I want to make a final point about the long-termism that is needed. We often hear the phrase “long-term economic plan”. The problem is that we had an autumn statement recently in which the Chancellor pulled out of his hat lots of white rabbits, but none of those white rabbits were for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Department for Communities and Local Government. The three Departments that we desperately need to be on the frontline to protect people in Cumbria are massively denuded. We have local authorities—South Lakeland District Council, Cumbria County Council and others—working very hard and doing a very good job, but with about 20% less people and resources than they had six years ago. It is therefore vital that the Government commit to providing the £500 million that PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified so that we can rebuild our communities, support our damaged people and communities, get people back in their homes, and do so quickly.

Rebecca Pow: I am speaking today, first, because we have to praise the historic agreement that was made in Paris. I commend not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but the whole team and Labour Members for all the work they did in the past. We also have to send commiserations to all those poor people suffering from flooding. We are dealing with both those things in today’s motion.
	I felt I had to speak, coming as I do from Somerset, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). Taunton Deane was, sadly, at the heart of the terrible flooding of 11,500 hectares of land from December 2012 right up, really, until January 2014. So I really can sympathise with the poor folk of Cumbria.
	In Somerset the impact was enormous. The cost for businesses, with all the knock-on effects, was estimated at £147 million, and it affected half of all the businesses in Somerset, even the ones that were not flooded, because of the road closures and things like that.
	It was a once-in-a-hundred-year event, so it was not exactly expected, and it was not just a result of not dredging rivers, although that was one of the things that made a difference. The rivers Parrett and Tone had not been dredged during the 1990s—and I am afraid I level that at our friends in the Labour party because it was under their Government that the dredging stopped.
	The flooding was also caused by a combination of many other things, including increased run-off from the urban areas around Taunton. But whether this extreme flooding was to do with climate change—that is still debateable—we clearly do have to be prepared for these events. In Somerset I am very pleased at the programme that has been put in place to set up the Somerset Rivers Authority. This has come with general agreement and much debate. A precept is to be set on everyone in Somerset and legislation will be passed to introduce it. That will then deal with the wider programme of tackling flooding in the future.
	I commend the Government. They have spent £15.5 million on flood defences in Somerset, protecting thousands of properties, and have made an overall commitment of £35 million until 2021. They are taking flooding extremely seriously.

Luke Hall: I take my hon. Friend’s point about preparations. Will she join me in welcoming the doubling of investment for innovation in low-carbon technology as one of the less talked about outcomes from Paris?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend, and I know he was at Paris. I was going to mention that at the end of my speech, but I will mention it now. Nobody has so far mentioned one of the crucial aspects of this debate: the investment in science and technology to enable us to meet all these commitments so that we can get to our zero rating. With our brains and our scientists, I am absolutely sure we can do it.
	The investment in flooding is money well spent, because every £1 spent on flood defences gives between £4 and £9 of benefit to the economy. So it is well worth doing.
	With my environmental-agricultural hat on, and as the new chairman of the all-party group on ancient woodland and veteran trees, I want to highlight a few areas, and here I have some agreement with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). There are many other things we can do to mitigate the effects of climate change and extreme weather in our environment. There is the wider catchment approach. There is working with farmers and landowners to slow the flow of water into the river basins, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) will agree with me on that. There is more tree planting; I applaud the Government’s commitment to plant 11 million trees—that is one for every five people. Perhaps we could plant a few more. Those trees will also help to slow the flow of water. Re-wilding is another area we could be looking at, as well as silt traps, ponds, and storage areas higher up in the valley to stop the water coming down quite so quickly.
	All of those things can be, and ought to be, included, and I will put in my usual call for more grass. Grass and mixed farming economies are the way forward. Grass holds in the water as well, and sequesters the carbon. I hope that the forestry Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), will look more closely at including grass in our policies. [Interruption.] We may laugh at that, but this is a serious way forward and it is great for the management of the countryside.
	On climate change, I commend the Government on everything they are doing. We have taken immense steps forward in securing this ambitious global deal, and we are moving in the right direction, but there is much still to do. Zero carbon emissions is a testing ambition.

Neil Parish: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Rebecca Pow: I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend from across the hills.

Neil Parish: The Opposition are saying that we have not made great progress on renewables, but we only have to see that in Devon and Somerset and across the west country there are huge amounts of solar panels in the fields. That did not happen under the last Government—and in fact many of our constituents complain that there are too many.

Rebecca Pow: My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point and we have seen the roll-out of solar renewables. We have made immense progress. Some 16% of our energy is from renewables and that is because of the steps this Government have taken. People are still buying into renewables and it has got cheaper. The cost of the panels has come down, which is why we need to remove the subsidies and put the subsidies where we can have more energy from other sources that need a bit of a boost. So I am right with the Secretary of State on her policy here.
	We need to lead by example. We have been doing it, but we need to continue to do so. I am a great environmentalist, but we have to do this within the constraints of the economy, which is something this Government are dealing with at all costs. We have had a debt to deal with. We are still paying off the legacy left over. We have to be realistic about what we are doing, and we have to provide security of energy at the lowest cost to the taxpayer, so whatever we do, there has got to be a balance.
	Big applause for the Government for their big step in getting rid of coal-fired power stations. If there was one single thing we could do for low-carbon energy, it was that. Applause also for Hinkley Point, obviously, which is very near my constituency. It is the biggest commitment to low-carbon energy we could possibly think of.
	I shall wind up by saying we can all do our own bit at home as well. We can all buy in, like Quantock Eco, Transition Taunton, Transition Athelney, and the Somerset Wildlife Trust. We can cut our air miles, make fewer car journeys, grow our own food. We can buy into it, and we need to buy into this whole situation. We need to do it through every Government Department. We need to do it across the world. We need to do it in our own homes.

Sue Hayman: First, may I apologise for my absence from my place last week? I am sure hon. Members are aware of the devastating floods we have had in Cumbria—it has been discussed during this debate. As my constituency is in Workington in Cumbria, I felt I should stay there to visit and support as many people and businesses as possible who had been affected by the floods. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement during Question Time that she intends to visit Cockermouth on Tuesday.
	I hope Members will indulge me for speaking from the heart about the events of the past 10 days or so. On the Sunday morning—nine days ago—I stood with shopkeepers and residents, shocked and horrified at seeing Cockermouth main street under water again after only six years. Every Member here will have a high street. I ask them to imagine standing at the end of that high street with the shopkeepers, with that whole high street, from top to bottom, under water. It is shocking. After the water subsided over the coming days, we were able to assess the damage.
	Flooding is not just about water. There is a lot talked about water, but water is incredibly powerful and in Cumbria it roars down the fells in the overloaded becks. It carries everything in its path. Drains back up and overflow, and oil tanks get swept away.
	Last week in the village of Flimby I stood with a family on their effluent-soaked carpet. I stood inside homes in Cockermouth that stank of diesel oil. I watched families in Workington throw decorated Christmas trees into skips. I visited the flooded village school in Brigham and went to the town of Aspatria to see more damage.
	Parents are now telling me that their children are too frightened to go to sleep in case it happens again. They are frightened of the rain. It is heart-breaking.
	Our community is resilient and has pulled together in an extraordinary way. I pay tribute to the local councils, the emergency services, the coastguard, mountain rescue, supermarkets that gave free food, the nuclear industry, the Kirkgate centre and so many volunteers, from Churches Together to Muslims 4 Humanity. I thank everybody throughout the country who has given money to the Cumbria Community Foundation for their generosity.
	I want to pay particular tribute to Neil Banks, who works for Allerdale Borough Council. We have some flats where 34 elderly residents were trapped. They could not get out and they had no power, water or food. Neil crawled through with water and torches and gave them the help and support they needed.
	One young family told me that they had bought their home because they were reassured that the floods of 2009 were a once in a 100-year or a once in a 1,000-year event. They believed that the floods were unprecedented. We have to stop using that language. The Environment Agency told me that the flood defences worked—that they did what they were designed to do. They made a big difference in some areas and to some families, but that is little comfort to the many people who have been made homeless just before Christmas.
	What do we need to do? I welcome the Government’s announcement about the Cumbrian floods partnership group. I urge the group to invite Cockermouth and district chamber of trade to be a member, because it has have invaluable experience to offer. I am pleased that the group is to be chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom I thank for coming to Cockermouth on Sunday.

Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She deserves more time to make it, so I thought I would intervene on her.

Sue Hayman: I thank my right hon. Friend.
	The Government have said that they will fund more defences, but the costs for Cumbria alone are estimated to be £500 million, and the solutions are about so much more than building higher and higher walls. The water has to go somewhere, and if we are not careful, we will build flood defences in one place with the result that protecting one area means that another takes the water and is damaged.
	We must look at our design of bridges. The bridge in Cockermouth ended up being a dam as it became more and more clogged with debris. We need to look at planning—it has already been said that there is simply too much building on floodplains. I fully endorse the appeal that my predecessor, Lord Campbell-Savours, made last week in the other place for a complete ban on housing development on the West Cumbria flood plain.
	I want to end by talking about insurance. Time and again, residents told me that, after the floods of 2009, they were either unable to get household insurance or it was offered with huge excesses—most commonly, £10,000. Now they cannot sell their homes.

Cat Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. Does she share my concern that insurance problems also affect many small local businesses, which are struggling to make ends meet and often cannot afford the premiums?

Sue Hayman: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We are concerned in my constituency that, if we do not do something about the problem of insurance, we will end up with abandoned streets that might as well be demolished. In fact, some local residents are so distressed that they have asked whether the Government would consider buying their houses and knocking them down because it would be cheaper and less stressful than building a flood barrier.
	What help will the Government give my constituents in this position? They are honest, hard-working, decent people. Many have lost not just the contents of their homes, but their cars, and some have lost their livelihoods.
	We were told that Flood Re was the answer after the previous floods, but it has been a fat lot of good to my constituents today. It is late—it is not expected to come in until next year; it is arbitrary and does not cover properties built after 2009, despite houses continuing to be built on floodplains, and it does not cover businesses. When people have insurance, the insurance companies are refusing to pay for resilience measures.
	My constituents need help now. They need it quickly. Climate change is here—its effects can be seen in Cumbria. We need a Government who are serious about having a long-term strategy to prevent this from happening again. We need the money and resources to make that happen.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the rules on interventions exist to allow debate to happen. It is right to intervene, and it is great for certain Members to be complimented by extremely senior members of their party—that has happened to some extent on both sides of the House this afternoon—but when the clock adds an extra minute for an intervention, it does not add any more minutes to the day or to the debate. It means that someone less fortunate in their placing on the list will speak for less time. I appreciate that there are many people whom Members would like to speak for less time, and many whom they would prefer to speak for more time, but one has to be careful about how that is managed.

David Davies: I am not sure into which category I fall, although I suspect that I know.
	First, I express my sympathy to all those victims of floods—Monmouthshire has been affected by flooding in the past, of course—and all those who helped with the clean-up. However, I take issue with the idea that man-made climate change has caused all that. It is unfortunate that the two issues have been mixed up.
	We have had few debates about global warming and climate change. Climate change has been with us for millions of years, ever since the Earth was created. I urge the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to ask a few hard questions of those who are frankly displaying some hysteria about climate change. In the past 2,000 years, there have been periods of warming and cooling. It was warmer during the Roman period; it got cooler in the dark ages; it was probably warmer during the medieval period than it is now, and it got cooler again until about 1680, during the so-called little ice age.
	One of the first questions to which the Secretary of State should find an answer is how much of the small amount of warming that has taken place in the past two centuries—about 0.8°—is down to man-made carbon emissions and how much is due to natural factors, such as the warming that must have taken place as a result of coming out of the little ice age.

Richard Benyon: rose—

David Davies: I have asked that question on many occasions and nobody could give me an answer, but I think that a former Minister is about to do so.

Richard Benyon: Ninety-five per cent. of climate scientists seem to suggest that man-made climate change is the problem. Many of us would like my hon. Friend to be right in his scepticism because that means that everything will be okay. Unfortunately, 95% of climate scientists, such as those we met at the Royal Society, disagree with him.

David Davies: I take issue with my hon. Friend. The 95% or 97% figure is floated around often, and I have done some research on it. It appears to have come from the Zimmerman/Doran survey, which was sent out to 10,257 potential respondents, who claimed to be climate scientists. Only 77 responded and 75 said, “I’m a climate scientist and it’s all down to man.” [Interruption.] If any other hon. Members know where the figure came from, they are welcome to let me know.
	The IPCC’s most recent summary for policy makers has also put out some misleading statements. Page 17 of the “Summary for Policymakers 2013” states that it is extremely likely that more than half of the increase in global average temperatures from 1951 was caused by man. However, of that 0.8° figure, only about 0.5° comes from the second half of the 20th century. That means that, if the IPCC is correct, only just over 0.25° out of 0.8° was caused by man. That means that more than half is due to other, more natural factors.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change may also like to ask about the lack of firm correlation between the increases in temperature and those in carbon emissions. Even in the past 200 years, there has been a sharp increase in carbon dioxide, but there has not been a sharp increase in temperatures. They have gone up and down. They were going up between 1910 and 1940 and they were going down markedly between 1940 and 1977, leading many to believe that we were on the brink of another ice age. From the mid-1970s until 1997, temperatures were rising, as were carbon emissions, but from 1997 or 1998 until now, there has been a sharp increase in CO2 but no increase in temperatures. We may wish to ask why that is.
	I have had meetings with the Royal Society and the Met Office, and I recently asked that question of Professor Jim Skea—a lead author on the IPCC—in a public meeting at the House of Commons, chaired by Lord Deben. I asked why there had been no increase in temperatures for the past 17 or 18 years, and he said that that was statistically insignificant. That is a fair comment. He was not trying to say that this is about oceans or because the volcanoes are cooling, or any of the other many theories; he said that it is statistically insignificant, and he may have a point. However, if the past 17 years of no increase in temperature are statistically insignificant, why are the 27 or so years before that when there was an increase in temperature so statistically significant that we have to go ahead with all sorts of policies that will have a massive impact on homeowners and businesses in the UK?
	Finally—I do not think anyone will be kind enough to intervene on me, although if someone wishes to, I shall be more than happy—

Tim Farron: rose—

Rebecca Pow: rose—

David Davies: Thank you! I have been waiting. I will give way to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) because I always prefer to give way to the Opposition—it is more fun.

Tim Farron: All Members of the House appreciate scepticism, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s scepticism is sincere. The problem is that if he spreads that kind of nonsense, he provides people with an excuse not to take action, and gives comfort to those who want us to do nothing about the biggest challenge facing humanity.

David Davies: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind words—I think—but I am just trying to raise questions. If he wants me to go to my constituents and try to sell policies that will push up their energy bills and make it more likely that some of those in the manufacturing industry will be out of work, I must have answers to questions that have not yet been provided. Why has there been no warming since 1997? Why is there no correlation over the past few hundred years? What percentage of 0.8° is down to natural factors? Those questions are important. Of the CO2 that has gone into the atmosphere, why has nobody queried the fact that less than 5% is man-made? People talk about CO2 as some sort of pollutant, but it is a perfectly natural gas and most of it is generated naturally from the earth and the sea.

Jim Cunningham: We can all talk in different debates about different views on what causes climatic change, but that is no consolation to the people of Cumbria who want to know when their insurance companies will pay up. That is the immediate problem.

David Davies: The people of Cumberland are right to want to know that, but the flooding should not be blamed on something that is unproven when the impact of changes that we make will affect people across the UK. Opposition Members were the first to complain about policies that have pushed up energy prices and made it more difficult for manufacturers such as those in the steel industry to make a profit. Some manufacturers, such as those in Redcar, have recently closed, partly because of those high energy costs. With all due respect, I say to the Secretary of State that Opposition Members will not support her policies if they lead to an increase in energy prices. She will be attacked by the Opposition when steel and other manufacturing plants close, and she will be attacked for causing fuel poverty.

Rebecca Pow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Davies: I cannot at the moment. Aid agencies talk about trying to drive up living standards in the third world, but they are making it harder for African villagers to get access to cheap electricity from coal. Environmentalists talk about the importance of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but they are totally opposed to nuclear power. They talk about wanting more wind power, but they are totally opposed to fracking for gas, which is necessary if we want nuclear energy. There is a great deal of inconsistency and many unanswered questions, and I ask the Secretary of State to respond to them.

John Woodcock: Given recent controversies about the way that I have addressed other hon. Members, I will say only that the speech by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) was enthusiastic, and I will not refer to its content.
	On behalf of my constituents, I want to express solidarity with the people of Cumbria and other areas, and across the bay into Lancaster, because of the dreadful situation that they have been in over the past week. I pay my respects to, and thank, the many agencies that have genuinely pulled out all the stops to help people at this difficult time, from national agencies to community organisations and individual members of the community who have pulled together.
	I also give my heartfelt thanks to fellow parliamentarians. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) made a magnificent speech and she is doing a wonderful job for her constituents at this difficult time. Despite really challenging conditions, The Bay radio managed to keep broadcasting and effect an emergency service throughout that period, and I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for reminding me of that.
	The debate on responsibility and past fault is valid, and it helps us to understand what has gone wrong in public policy and what has worked. However, it only goes so far, and it is important that the House focuses on what has been deficient and what can be done in future to make it better. In that sense, I hope that Ministers will have the courage to assess the issue dispassionately. Where they identify that the current trajectory is insufficient, I hope they will take the difficult steps of arguing with their colleagues to put those things right for the future. They owe it to the people of Cumbria and the north-west who are suffering so badly, but also to the whole country, to ensure that it is recognised that these floods will not happen only once in 100 years. It makes a mockery of Government science if we cling to that description, given the prevalence of such events in recent years.
	In the time I have left I want to push for answers and further action on specific issues in my area regarding what happens next. In 2009 Furness was badly hit by floods, and some homes are still suffering from the six-year process to get back on their feet, and the difficulty of getting insurance. This time we were more fortunate, but transport links were affected when the A roads at both ends of my constituency were flooded and became impassable. That occurrence is all too frequent in that area, not simply because of adverse weather conditions, but because of accidents. I urge the Environment Secretary to speak to the Transport Secretary and agree to reassess the A590 and areas that are flooded such as Levens and Lindale, and to make anti-flooding measures investment priorities. Such measures are really needed and could genuinely be a matter of life or death, given the vital health services that we often have to access across Morecambe bay.
	I call on South Lakeland District Council to reopen the issue of building on floodplains in Ulverston and other areas. It has set its face against such a reassessment, but surely these events will give them the courage to think again. Finally, let me add to the message from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I have been contacted by Anita Garnett of the Ulverston Brewing Company, who passed on the huge concern from local pubs because people are not visiting at this vital time. South Cumbria and Furness remains open for business, and that message must go out loud and clear.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) asked for evidence for his constituents. A quick check on Google shows that the NASA site states that the five-year average for global temperatures is rising by 0.75% a year, and that the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000. That may help.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend think that Jim Skea, an IPCC lead author and world renowned expert on climate change who spoke recently at the House of Commons, is wrong about the hiatus, as is the Met Office?

Kevin Hollinrake: I do not know Mr Skea, but I do know of NASA. And I have another minute on the back of that intervention, which I appreciate.
	There has been a fourfold increase in extreme weather events since the turn of the 19th century, and we have all seen the terrible scenes affecting homes, businesses and farmers and the devastation as the water recedes. In my constituency, the town of Pickering has suffered devastating floods four times in 10 years. The Secretary of State joined me in opening an innovative scheme there called Slow the Flow, which other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), have mentioned. This involves upstream attenuation measures, bunds, the planting of 60,000 trees, dealing with timber debris and the restoration of wetlands, all of which will help matters upstream. I urge the Secretary of State to look at this as a model for future activity.
	Our television screens have been dominated in recent weeks by the flow of migrants across continents. Perhaps this is a warning of the much greater population movements ahead if we do not tackle climate change. It is a threat to our lives and our livelihoods and to national, global and economic security. I welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts in Paris. She showed great leadership in getting together 190 nations in a single unanimous agreement. There are difficult choices ahead, and I do not envy Ministers who have to make tough decisions many years in advance amid the many voices and choices.
	Credit where it is due, the UK has a proud record on climate change. In the climate change performance index, the UK is No. 2, behind only Denmark and way ahead of most other western countries. We had the world’s first green investment bank and the world’s first tidal lagoon, and we are a world leader in offshore wind. We have trebled renewable energy production to 19%, but we have much more to do. The energy performance of our housing stock needs to be improved. We need to replace the complex, defunct and ineffective green deal. We also need to invest further in renewables and energy storage.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend talks about the insulation of homes, and we need to do a lot more for solid wall properties. Many of the rural areas in our constituencies have such properties, but a lot of the green deals simply do not stack up as a result of the extra cost involved in the insulation of solid wall properties.

Kevin Hollinrake: I absolutely agree. We need a new scheme. Owing to the demographic of our housing stock, we have some of the least energy-efficient housing stock in Europe.
	We must also be pragmatic. Only 7% of our energy comes from renewables today, and fossil fuels will be part of the mix for the foreseeable future. There is an MI5 maxim that we are only four meals away from anarchy. We are probably only two dark days and nights away from anarchy, too. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and we have to keep the lights on.

Ian Lavery: There has to be an understanding that shale gas—natural gas—is a fossil fuel, and that if we continue to burn it in ever-increasing amounts to replace the coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage, we will never hit the limits that we have just agreed in Paris only a week ago.

Kevin Hollinrake: I will come to that point shortly.
	Let us look at the situation in the US, which is the second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the US has made great progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and an important reason for that is its production of shale gas. Environmental campaigners such as Stephen Tindale of Climate Answers and the Labour shadow energy Minister, Baroness Worthington, have expressed support for fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions but, crucially, only in conjunction with investment in carbon capture and storage and low-carbon energy generation, storage and distribution.
	There is a shale gas application in my constituency. Having heard both sides of the debate over many months, I decided to visit Pennsylvania, where fracking has happened, to see whether it is possible to do it safely and in a way that does not industrialise the countryside. I believe that that is possible, but we need to paint a picture for local people to show them that. At the moment, we are losing the PR war with those who are simply against fossil fuels per se. Fossil fuels are going to remain part of the mix.
	Our regulations are strong—they are certainly much stronger than those in the United States—but I believe that we need a lead agency and independent supervision of the regulations. I also believe that we need a local plan, so that residents can see how their area will change or, as I believe, not change. In my constituency, there are already 10 conventional gas well sites, and most of the residents do not even know where they are. The local producers say they will need another 10 more sites and, crucially, 950 wells. That scares people, but 10 more sites are relatively easy to screen. In my constituency, there are hundreds of pig and poultry farms whose visual impact is much greater than that of a fracked well site.
	We must win the argument publicly, so that people can see that fracking will not change the nature of their countryside and that it can be done safely. We must proceed cautiously. We must produce the evidence, and ensure that the public have full access to that evidence, if we are to win the argument. We are in an age of wonderful technology and we can paint a picture through computer-generated images and time-lapse photography to show people how it is possible to move towards a much cleaner source of fossil fuels and to provide an important bridge to a carbon-free future.

Eleanor Laing: Order. My prediction about time not standing still during interventions was, I am afraid, correct. I shall now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Callum McCaig: Floods are clearly devastating at any time, but never more so than at this time of year. We have heard a number of eloquent speeches about the devastation that the floods have wrought, but we also need to remember that we are in a fortunate position, as a rich advanced nation, in that we can afford to rebuild, to rehouse and to protect those who are affected by flooding. Those who are affected by climate change in other parts of the world will not be so fortunate.
	For me, the stand-out aspect of the Paris agreement was the $100 billion for the mitigation of climate change. That will allow the poorest nations access to the finance they need to develop in a way that will allow the planet to be protected. It will also give us the opportunity to lock in low carbon emissions without locking in poverty. That is fundamental to the way in which we deal with what has rightly been described as the greatest threat that humanity is facing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) mentioned the Scottish Government’s climate justice fund, and we as a party are rightly proud of that. This is not a devolved matter, but we have sought to put our money where our mouth is. That money has to be seen as an additional contribution, however; it cannot be taken out of the pot because of what we have done. That needs to be respected nationally and repeated internationally.
	We have had many debates in this place on the changes that have been made to the renewables obligation and to the green economy more widely. It disappoints me to state that our target in Scotland of a 100% renewable electricity generation is under threat because of changes to the renewables obligation and the prevarication over contracts for difference. There has also been much slower progress over heat, which represents a bigger challenge in relation to carbon reduction. It is pleasing that there will still be some form of support through the renewable heat incentive, but in the context of what we are dealing with following Paris, the £700 million that has been taken out seems like yet another short-sighted move.
	Speaking of short-sighted approaches, the decision on carbon capture and storage is one of the worst that we have heard, and I will continue to bang the drum about that. There has been prevarication over CCS for a number of years. This process just needs to be done. We are talking about spending billions of pounds to prevent the symptoms, but we are not trying to tackle the cure. If we were to put £1 billion into carbon capture and storage, the reduction in the impact of flooding would be a potential game changer. Using carbon capture and storage is the most straightforward way of dealing with the matter. It also has the least impact on our economic model. It allows us to extract the fossil fuels that we discussed—shale, North sea oil or whatever—without having to invest. We will still have to invest in other technologies, but this gives us an opportunity.

Barry Gardiner: Did the hon. Gentleman share a sense of comedy yesterday when the Secretary of State spoke on this matter? She said:
	“I believe that CCS is going to play an important part in decarbonising in the future”.—[Official Report, 14 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1297.]
	She then went on to say that, just for now, the Government are cutting the £1 billion subsidy towards it.

Callum McCaig: It was comedy of the blackest sort. It is short-sighted and it does not take into account how we can target the reduction at industry, as has been ably suggested.
	The action here falls very short of the rhetoric, and very, very short of what is required to deliver and protect those people, both at home and abroad, from the impact of climate change. We need to up our game. It is time that we reset the reset button. I am happy if we in the Scottish National party join the high ambition coalition of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) here in the UK. The SNP is more than ready and willing to play our part in achieving that ambition.

Luke Hall: May I associate myself with those who have expressed their condolences to the victims of the floods? I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) on such a powerful speech on behalf of her constituents: I can certainly picture myself at the bottom of my high street in such a situation.
	I am one of many MPs across the House who regard climate change as one of the most serious long-term economic and environmental threats that this country and our world face, although I had not quite appreciated the threat it posed to haggis, which was mentioned earlier.
	Earlier this month, I, along with other Members, attended the Globe conference in Paris, where legislators, leading members of the judiciary, policymakers, the scientific and academic community, and business and civil society gathered to discuss the challenges in Paris and the post-2015 agenda.
	We heard contributions from Deputy Jean-Paul Chanteguet, president of Globe France, Jacqueline McGlade, chief scientist on the United Nations environment programme, Helen Clark, former President of New Zealand, Senator
	Ed Markey, and legislators from around the world. A cross-party delegation of MPs from the UK included members of the Energy and Climate Change Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. We were ably led by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). When the Secretary of State sums up, perhaps he will mention the contribution of the Globe conference to the debate.
	The feeling that I gauged during the conference was one of cross-party consensus and support for the ambitious deal in Paris. The presence of such a strong delegation from the UK was vital. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who chaired the conference so ably.
	The commitment by 195 nations to attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will limit the global average temperature is truly historic. Inaction on climate change would cost us a great deal more than shifting to a decarbonised, climate-friendly way of life. I particularly welcome the legally binding, regular reviews and submissions of emission reduction targets. It is important that those countries will now have to come together regularly to review their climate plans and collectively ensure that the necessary action is taken to tackle climate change.
	Countries being legally obliged to make new post-2030 commitments to reduce emissions every five years from 2025 is a welcome step forward. I also welcome the $100 billion fund from developed economies to help emerging and developing nations decarbonise their energy mix, which will provide welcome support to aid the transition from burning fossil fuels to clean energy sources.
	Decarbonisation will have to be a key part of the UK’s fiscal policies—lip service will not be enough. I am confident that the Secretary of State agrees with me on that point.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about the importance of the climate change deal in Paris. Bringing it down to a local level, where he and I both live, does he agree that it is incredibly important that, this month, the snappily named “Severn River Basin District: flood risk management plan” is published, which will be on top of local flood resilience plans, because he and I both know the devastating impact that climate change has had on the River Severn and on our local areas?

Luke Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I completely agree with him about the importance of that plan. I will do everything I can to help him work on it in the future.
	I also thank the Secretary of State for her assurances during that conference that she would do everything possible to secure an ambitious deal. I commend her for playing such an important role in the successful negotiation. The deal sets out a clear long-term goal of near net zero emissions by the end of the century, and it represents a huge step forward in securing the future of our planet.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), who is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee.
	I will take leadership as my theme today. I am talking about the leadership that has been shown during the negotiations not just by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change but by the whole team that was out there. I was delighted to meet up with Lord Nick Bourne, an old colleague of mine from Swansea institute, and to urge him to show that leadership. The outcome was good, but I am sure that the Secretary of State and her team will agree when I say that it is as nothing unless we now rise to the challenge that it has set up. We are looking at 3.5° to 3.7° based on our current trajectory of global warming. If all the actions within the current package are delivered, we may be able to achieve 2.5°, or even 1.5° if we ratchet up our actions every year or every five years. The scale of this transition is huge; it is enormous. We cannot base it on our current plans, so the leadership that has been shown should be commended. We now need that leadership to turbo-charge what we do both here within the UK and in our international negotiations.
	Once again I applaud the leadership that has been shown on the ground in areas of flooding, including in Hawick in Northern Ireland, in Wales, and in Workington, the scenes from which were described in the remarkable and emotional words of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I was in Workington back in 2009, after what we thought was the worst flooding we had ever seen. That came on the back of the 2005 floods, and here we are again. Back in 2009, more than 2,200 properties and 250 farms were affected, 25 bridges were closed, and 40 waste treatment works were closed—again there is that issue of resilience—and here we are again.
	In response to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), whom I love dearly, I have to say that he is completely wrong. We are not talking about this one event being down to climate change. It does not matter whether we are talking about the traumatic incidents in Cumbria, Scotland, north Wales, Ireland, Bangladesh, or the Maldives, it is a pattern of climate change that is unarguable and we must deal with it.
	In the short time available, I must say to the UK Government that, if we are to make the Paris commitments work and go further, we really need a step change now. We need to go further on the international stage. I strongly urge the Minister and her team to go back and look at what we are doing at an EU level. I suggest that we are not being ambitious enough to meet that 1.5° or 2° target. In terms of this country, the right hon. Lady has admitted that we have a policy vacuum at the moment, specifically in regard to the closure of various schemes. I will not argue the pros and cons of it, but we have a policy vacuum none the less, whether it relates to energy efficiency in homes, the type of clean green energy that we produce, demand reduction, or residential or commercial properties. We are consistently being told by business people and others that there is a policy vacuum in all those areas.

Neil Parish: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a tidal lagoon in Swansea would be a very good way to produce tidal energy, and that we could use that idea all around the United Kingdom?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My admiration for the hon. Gentleman has gone up hugely, because I was not going to be able to get in that point. He is right. We were a little frustrated by the lack of announcements on the Swansea Bay lagoon and strike prices in the autumn statement. Let us now see a commitment that will take forward not only the Swansea Bay lagoon, but the Cardiff Bay lagoon and all the ones that come after it. One of my recommendations to the Secretary of State would be this: let us use this as an opportunity to create jobs and to be a world leader so that we can export that technology, that know-how and those jobs. It is there for the taking. When Stern warned us about the challenges of climate change, he told us to make the early investment to save money down the line. That is what we must now do.

Rebecca Pow: I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I wonder whether you might want to comment on this: with the plan you are suggesting, we need much more—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am not suggesting anything. It is “he” or “the hon. Gentlemen”, not “you”.

Rebecca Pow: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether we need more detailed inspection within Government Departments so that we are all doing our bit? We have a green investment strategy in the Department for Transport, but what about all the other Departments? Should we be working together more?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady, who is so committed on these issues, is absolutely right. The approach needs to be cross-departmental and rigorous, and it needs a step change. We have been trying to turn the supertanker around slowly, but Paris says that that is not fast enough. Lord Deben, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, has said that we need to do more. We heard recently from the head of the National Audit Office, who said that we need joined-up thinking and leadership in government. The hon. Lady is absolutely right.
	One of the biggest commitments the Government could make—the Secretary of State and her team would have my support—is fully to accept what the Committee on Climate Change says about the outcomes of Paris. It said in its June report that we need to go further and faster. We will now need to go faster again and deliver more. There are opportunities with that. I ask the Secretary of State to accept that—I ask her do it and get on with it, and in fact go beyond it if she can. She should look at how we can do that. What technologies should we invest in? Where will the private sector put its money? What do we do with the green investment bank? How does it play its part?
	The Secretary of State should also fill the current gap from the fourth carbon budget. That is to do with leadership. It is great coming back from Paris with excellent commitments—they are better than many people were expecting. The UK played a leadership role there. We now need to take it to a whole other level. Paris means that it is not business as usual for us or for many other nations. Let us keep on leading and let us go further. I look forward to the Secretary of State saying how we will do that.

Tom Elliott: It has been an interesting debate and it is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke about his views on climate change.
	We have talked a lot about the Paris deal. We have that relationship and what will turn out to be an historic agreement. I want to highlight another historic agreement —one made between the Northern Ireland Government and the Republic of Ireland Government back in 1950, which also included the Westminster Government. At that time, there was an agreement between the three Governments to have a hydropower station in the Republic of Ireland using the water that flowed from Lough Erne.
	I am disappointed that the motion does not mention Northern Ireland at all. At least 16 roads are closed in my constituency and huge amounts of damage have been done to businesses and homes. Like other constituents in Cumbria, Scotland and other places, a number of my constituents will not be in their homes for Christmas, which is a demoralising situation. Local businesses—family-owned businesses—have lost more than £100,000 of stock and a lot of their Christmas business. That is devastating for them and for me, and it might actually put some of them out of business.
	The farmlands, which have been highlighted, are where the agreement between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland come into play. The levels of Lough Erne have not been investigated since 1950. We need that historic agreement to move on and we need a review of it. We need to ensure that some of the actions that took place at that time—in other words, dredging Lough Erne and ensuring that the levels were safe and reasonable—need to be carried out once again.
	I appreciate that that is a devolved matter, but I am asking the UK Secretary of State to speak to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Minister in Northern Ireland to see whether there is flexibility and whether another agreement is needed from Westminster, just as there was in 1950. I note that the Secretary of State indicated a special finance scheme or a special scheme for farmers. I wonder whether there will be a knock-on effect, perhaps through the Barnett consequentials, to help farmers in Northern Ireland to clean up. It is important that we get assistance just as people in Cumbria in England and other places in Scotland will get assistance.
	My colleagues from Scotland talked about the situation there. Unlike the Departments in Scotland, Departments in Northern Ireland have not dealt with the situation as well. People and staff on the ground have been very effective in helping businesses, domestic homes and farmers, but the Departments have not been effective at the wider aspect of planning. That is a key aspect. We do not want a repeat of what has happened this year. We had the same situation in 2009 that is being repeated six years later. We do not want another repeat in another four or six years.
	I am appealing to the Secretary of State and the Government to do all they can to ensure that this does not happen again and, in my case, to liaise with officials and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Departments.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. While we had time limits of four or five minutes, several Members spoke for seven or eight minutes. They know who they are. Those who are still to speak can feel aggrieved—they can take it up with them and not with me. I therefore have to reduce the limit to three minutes.

Cat Smith: I speak as the Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Fleetwood, a constituency that was affected by Storm Desmond and recent flooding. Although we are not in Cumbria, I urge hon. Members to remember that the effects of the flood went beyond those county boundaries.
	I pay tribute to the role of The Bay, our local commercial radio station, which continued broadcasting. For many people, it was their only source of communication with the outside world for four days because we lost power. The station managed to get back online despite being flooded and despite power cuts to keep local people informed.
	A lot has been said about the effects of the flooding of the city centre in Lancaster, but I want to say something about the impact on the Lune valley, a beautiful part of Lancashire that has a big farming community. I thank Jenny Walmsley, the chair of the Caton-with-Littledale parish council, who helped to introduce me to many more people that I did not already know in that area. I welcome the news from the Government today about the support for farmers and look forward to seeing it go online.
	The floods in recent weeks are consistent with what we should expect in a warming world. Met Office data show that annual rainfall has increased in the UK since the 1980s. Five out of the six wettest years on record have occurred since the start of the new millennium. That is a warning that I heed.
	Businesses in my constituency have been badly affected. I pay tribute to the business people who stepped up and played a role when the water breached and flooded the city centre, including Mark Cutter, the landlord of the Robert Gillow pub. He opened up his pub and allowed people in when they were unable to return across the river after their Saturday nights out because the bridges had been hit by a shipping container. That reminds us of the force of nature. People enjoying the nightlife in Lancaster were stranded in our city centre.
	Small businesses are particularly at risk from flooding and 52% of them do not have flood insurance. My fear is that that will increase in my constituency because insurance premiums will certainly increase. The Environment Agency’s long-term investment scenarios recommend an optimum overall investment of around £470 million a year more than is currently being spent. Therefore, the Government need to spend £2.5 billion in the period from 2015 to 2021. That might sound like a lot of money but, frankly, the cost of doing nothing is far greater than the cost of investing in protecting our communities from floods. I have seen first hand for the first time the devastation in the area where I live. I call on the Government to support our councils as they do their best to deliver. It should not take another flood for the Government to realise their mistake. I also call on them to take climate change and flood defences seriously.

Ronnie Cowan: UK Government analysis shows that global warming is expected to cause more intensive heavy rainfall events and we have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared for the ramifications of the changes in our weather.
	The Government have set up a national flood resilience review in England and a report will be published in summer 2016. I hope the review will look far and wide for innovative, sustainable solutions, because it has rained before, it has flooded before and we have had reviews before. A solution will not be found by more parliamentarians navel-gazing. The cry of, “I want to make things right, just not right now” is how we fail to make things better. I hear the Government promising, over the next six years, £2.3 billion in capital funding on flood defences and I acknowledge that in 2014-15 the Government spent £171 million of taxpayers’ money on flood maintenance. But just like the wee boy with his finger stuck in a dam, required as these actions are, they do not solve the problems.
	We have two problems facing us. First, we are screwing up our own environment—let us be absolutely clear about that. Turning that around is a massive task that sticking plaster politics will not address, yet the Government have decided to cut investment in carbon capture and storage technology, reduce funding for solar energy and block the growth of wind energy. Secondly, we need to find a way to alleviate the flooding we now see on an annual basis. Every additional instance of flooding means more lost revenue for local businesses or damage to homes. We owe it to our constituents to meet or exceed our targeted timeframes for tackling this issue.
	We must also recognise that the way we have changed the environment has left us more exposed to the risks of flooding. We should give serious consideration to reforestation as one method of assisting flood prevention. Trees catch rainfall and take water from the soil. With careful planning, they could be our first line of defence. Managed correctly, trees lead us to the next logical stage: utilising biomass boilers can maintain a closed carbon cycle with no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. If all public buildings used biomass boilers and could source their fuel, primarily wood pellets or wood chips, locally, we would start to see a coherent localised industry employing local people as part of an environmentally friendly solution.
	Reforestation is just one of many policies we could implement to improve our catchment management in the longer term. Contour ploughing, restoring upland bogs and reintroducing the meanders in straightened rivers are other measures we may wish to consider as we seek more permanent solutions. One change will not fix the problem, but a series of correct adjustments will help in a number of different ways. Whether it is reforestation or tackling climate change, it is time for us to be bold with our policy making and ensure that no more lives, businesses or homes are ruined by flooding.

Geraint Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). I speak as a former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales, responsible for adapting Wales to climate change in terms of flood defences and investing the Welsh Assembly’s money through the Environment Agency and partners. I will be talking about adaptation.
	On Paris, I will simply say that the Secretary of State needs to look carefully at the fact that the environmental imperatives agreed in Paris are not enforceable and binding in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, on which the Government are moving ahead.
	On adaptation, we took evidence from Kuala Lumpur, which was drowned in water every year until it put in storage lakes upstream and tunnels underneath. In addition to woodland and so on, we need to consider the option of major capture and diversion of rivers upstream to stop flooding. On urban drainage systems, we need to consider the use of water butts. It is not enough just to have a few bits of grass verge for absorption; all public buildings—and, arguably, all new build—should have butts. Butts store water from the roof, which is then leaked down over a period of days, rather than just swept through the sewerage system all at once. The sewerage system, of course, takes floodwater and sewage. When it all comes up through the drains, everything is ruined. We can stop that happening by capture and storage on roofs. That would save enormous amounts of money.
	On housing, we have heard that not enough is being spent on defences and maintenance, but such spending gives a false sense of security. There needs to be investment not only on defence but on common-sense resilience too. Raising plugs on walls, installing steps on entry into houses and waterproofing downstairs would mean that after flooding, people could get back to their normal lives. Many people die from the trauma of flooding.
	On insurance, poor people cannot get insurance. There should be local government schemes for insurance. That would also incentivise local authorities not to build on floodplains, which they do. Regardless of what the Environment Agency says, a lot of local authorities just keep on building. We need to ensure that we have sufficient emergency services, including armed services. Finally, we need to ensure the ratio of cost to value—we have heard some of the ratios today, such as four times nine. We need to ensure that poor people in low-value houses are protected. In Wales, we have changed the system, so it is not just those who live in a rich property area who receive flood defence. Those who are poor are protected and can get insurance. It is vital that we invest in adaption and I wish the Secretary of State the best of luck.

Lisa Cameron: I am delighted to speak in this debate as the Scottish National party spokesperson on climate justice.
	The flooding caused by Storm Desmond, which affected large areas of north-west England, southern Scotland, north Wales and Northern Ireland, has had devastating effects. At a time when most of us are looking forward to Christmas and trying to be organised for the forthcoming festivities, those most severely affected by the flooding are likely to be facing a more bleaker festive period away from their homes for the imminent future, with a significant clean-up process ahead of them. Our thoughts are first with those affected and we express our gratitude to all the emergency services involved alongside communities and local councils.
	This is not an isolated event, however, and over recent years there have been a number of extreme floods in the UK, both during winter and summer months. Some people have experienced floods on multiple occasions. Extreme floods have a substantial human, emotional and financial toll on the individuals and communities affected, both in the immediate aftermath and over the long term. Flooding leads to homes and businesses having to be evacuated, loss of power, and to public amenities and transport links being closed. Most tragically of all, it has resulted in a number of fatalities.
	In Scotland, the Scottish Government are very aware of the impact of climate change, both domestically and globally. They have introduced pioneering policies which aim to alleviate the effects of climate change both in Scotland and in developing countries across the world. In this regard, the Scottish Government have been investing in a number of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and Scotland is well on its way to meeting its world-leading target of a 42% reduction in emissions by 2020. We have also made significant progress on building renewable energy resources, which, as well as providing a sustainable energy supply, promotes jobs and growth.

Patrick Grady: Does my hon. Friend recognise the contribution the Scottish Government have made, with the announcement of the £12 million climate justice fund to be extended over the next four years? Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) on the importance of climate justice funding, including the $100 billion a year in addition to existing aid flows?

Lisa Cameron: My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely, as I was just moving on to those very points.
	The Scottish Government are aware of the importance of supporting developing countries around the world, and have been encouraging investment in their climate justice fund. In the past five years, the climate justice fund has already invested £6 million in 11 projects in four sub-Saharan African countries. In Malawi, for example, about 30,000 people now have access to safe, clean drinking water and over 100 communities have been trained in natural resource rights and management. The Scottish Government have also announced they will double their climate justice fund by pledging a further £12 million for developing countries to help lessen the impacts of climate change. This is important because it is recognised that richer countries have polluted more and for longer, and that we therefore have a responsibility to ensure developing countries can adapt adequately to climate change.
	I applaud the hard work that UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers and Governments across the world put into the COP 21 agreement in Paris. I was honoured to play a small role by attending the legislators summit hosted by GLOBE International. I also had the pleasure of visiting the London Natural History Museum during recess. It got me thinking about global climate change and how it hit the dinosaurs of the past and led to their extinction. Climate change is not new, but it is once again reaching crisis point. We must learn the lessons of the past, not be the dinosaurs of the present, and protect this world for future generations.

Liz McInnes: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this fascinating debate.
	As many hon. Members have pointed out, just six years ago Cumbria was hit by unprecedented floods, and once again, this year, it has been hit by unprecedented rainfall. More than a month’s rain fell in one day on Saturday 5 December, and main rivers across Cumbria exceeded the highest levels ever recorded. Storm Desmond led to road closures, rail disruption, school closures and loss of power supply to many homes and businesses owing to unforeseen flood damage at a substation in Lancaster, as a result of which hospitals had to work on emergency generators and Lancaster University had to declare the end of term one week early. I had my own, small experience of this: on Sunday 6 December, we had to drive to Lancaster to rescue our son from the university, which had been without power since Saturday evening. Surely power stations should be protected from flooding to prevent such disruption to our healthcare, education and business institutions. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has announced a national flood resilience review to assess our infrastructure, including electricity substations.
	I want to mention the creation of a statutory duty on the fire and rescue service to respond to flooding. The Fire Brigades Union argues that a statutory duty on firefighters to attend floods would help fire and rescue services, other emergency services and the Government to plan effectively and reduce risk to life and property, and indeed such a duty has already been adopted in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The response to the recent floods has shown the emergency services, the military and the British people at their best. Communities have rallied round and helped those in need of shelter, food and clothing—they have been magnificent—but they need action and support from a Government who have failed to take the flood threat seriously.
	Not only are better flood defences needed, but cuts to emergency services need to be addressed. Five fire stations in Cumbria are set to close in the latest round of money-saving measures. It sounds like a statement of the obvious, but we cannot go on cutting the fire service, while expecting it to do more and more. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for quoting the Prime Minister’s words:
	“After every flood the thing to do is sit down, look at the money you are spending…and ask is it enough.”
	Clearly, it is not enough. The Government’s “cut first, think later” approach is failing communities blighted by flooding.

Lisa Nandy: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given a voice to communities affected by flooding today. We called this debate to give those communities a voice, and Members who have spoken have done those communities proud.
	Members have done something else: they have given a voice to all of us who are deeply concerned about the costs of inaction on climate change and what it will mean for the UK. There is a remarkable degree of consensus—with the exception of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—about the clear link between climate change and the emerging trends in flooding. The Met Office analysis suggests that global warming at or above 2º from 1990 levels will increase the risk of extreme floods by a factor of seven. It is becoming increasingly clear that the sort of rainfall and flooding once seen as rare—as once-in-100-years events perhaps—seem to be happening more frequently. It is right that the Government have acknowledged that.
	The Government’s own adviser on climate change, Lord Deben, said that
	“if global greenhouse gas emissions do not peak soon and start to fall, 4 or more degrees of warming could take place this century. This would lead to severe and unavoidable…flood risk”
	and result in an extra 1 million homes being exposed. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that the annual cost of flood damage to the UK could increase from £1 billion to £5.6 billion by the 2080s.
	In her short but moving contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) made us understand the human consequences, and as her neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), said, this is about the future. The Committee on Climate Change said that the Government’s national adaptation programme lists a range of useful activity, but that it does not amount to a coherent programme. I say to Ministers today that they must urgently rectify that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said that we need a real plan—a long-term plan, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) also pointed out.
	We also need to recognise, as the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) made clear in his contribution, that inaction has a cost. These are lives, homes and livelihoods that are on the line. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) said that we are spending billions tackling the symptoms and not the cause. Quite frankly, we cannot go on like that.
	Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I called for a new flood risk assessment, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Environment Secretary for agreeing to that. What that will not be able to do, however—given that we have wait until 2017 for the national climate risk assessment—is fully account for the latest understanding of climate change impacts on UK flooding. I therefore ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change today whether she will bring that forward. Will there be a new national climate adaptation plan to follow those reviews?
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, the leadership shown in Paris must be followed by leadership at home, so I take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State the following again. Will she take the chance presented by the Paris accord and stop the sell-off of the Green Investment Bank, and stop blocking onshore wind where there is strong local support for it? Will she take this chance to make real progress on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, and will she find the money to fulfil the promise made by successive Governments to coalfield communities to give us carbon capture and storage, so that those communities have the chance to build the future of energy and future jobs? Will she think again, too, about the deep cuts made to the solar industry—just at the moment when it stood on the cusp of becoming economically viable?
	Many Members talked about the need to take the public with us on the journey to climate safety. Just as communities such as mine in Wigan helped to build this country’s prosperity through dangerous, difficult and dirty work down the coalmines, so young people in communities such as Wigan and across the country should be given the chance to build and power the future through jobs in solar, wind and CCS.
	The UK team—the Department for Energy and Climate Change team and officials, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) as chairman of GLOBE International—showed in Paris this weekend just what is possible if we put our minds to something, raise our ambition and work together to build the future. In so doing, they built on a proud record of leadership shown by the UK—from 1997 and Kyoto to the Climate Change Act 2008, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and David Miliband. Again, in 2015, I was proud to stand with 50 Labour councils around the UK that have pledged to go clean by 2050.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, we owe our thanks to the emergency services, the armed forces, the charities, the businesses and the individuals who are doing what they can now to help those families whose homes are under water. We owe it to them to understand the risks and to take action to prevent future flooding.
	If the Secretary of State will not listen to me, will she please listen to the powerful and moving speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) about homes under water, children frightened of the rain, shopkeepers devastated and extraordinary acts of courage from members of the public? This is the courage we need now from the Secretary of State. The costs of inaction on climate change are right before us. I ask the right hon. Lady to show the leadership that we so desperately need, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Amber Rudd: I thank the Labour party for bringing this issue to the House, and I thank all the Members who have taken part in what has been an animated and energetic debate.
	The exceptional rainfall that we have seen over the past couple of weeks has led to some very distressing situations for families and businesses in parts of the country where serious flooding has occurred. The hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) did indeed speak movingly about the impact on her constituency, but the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) reminded us that, despite that devastation, communities were open for business. I thank the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for
	Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) for describing the experience in Scotland. I also thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott). He reminded us to liaise closely with our Northern Ireland counterparts, which we will of course do.
	Like many other Members, I pay tribute to the work of the emergency responders, including the fire service—especially in view of the example given by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)—and the volunteers who have worked tirelessly to return people to safety, to restore power supplies, and to clean up quickly so that people can return to their homes as soon as possible.

Ian Lavery: It has been said time and again how valuable and heroic the fire and rescue services have been in cases of flood, including those in not just Cumbria but Northumberland this week. Why is there so much resistance to giving them a statutory duty to carry out floodwater rescues?

Amber Rudd: Several other Members have made the same suggestion. All I can say at this stage is that I hope various Ministers will continue to consider it, because I share the hon. Gentleman’s admiration for all the effort and work that the fire and rescue services have put into helping people.
	Over the next six years, we will invest £2.3 billion in flood defence. That is a real-terms increase on the £1.7 billion that was invested during the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made some helpful suggestions about future spending on mitigation, while the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) called for more support. I remind the hon. Lady that £60 million has already been invested in flood defences to protect Fleetwood. More than 200 schemes are currently being constructed in England, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide better protection for 300,000 more homes.

Tim Farron: rose—

Amber Rudd: I know that the hon. Gentleman recognised the enormous effort that had gone into support for Cumbria, and that he made some additional suggestions, which I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Tim Farron: I can help the Secretary of State to find some of the sources of funds that would partly satisfy my requests. Her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said earlier that one reason why a bid might not yet have been made for EU solidarity funds was the fact that they would take seven months to come through. Will she confirm that Commissioner Cre?u made clear today that 10% of any award from the solidarity fund could be provided immediately to help us to carry out work such as the rebuilding of the A591?

Amber Rudd: I have been reliably informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Department for Transport is already dealing with the matter, so the hon. Gentleman may well see some action in that regard.

Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Amber Rudd: I am going to make some progress now, because we are very short of time.
	There is a link between climate change and an increase in extreme weather events. I do not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who always speaks with enthusiasm. Let me say to him that, while we cannot attribute every storm, drought or flood directly to climate change, all the evidence from our scientific understanding of weather systems suggests that our changing climate will lead to more intense and more frequent events. Last month, the Met Office released papers from its study of the exceptional rainfall of 2013-14. It found that, given the same weather pattern—a persistent westerly flow—extreme rainfall over 10 consecutive winter days might be about seven times more likely now than it would be in a world without man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
	Of course natural influences will still be an important factor, but it is clear that the impact of climate change is already being felt, especially in vulnerable countries, which is why the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) was right to comment on the need to assist developing countries with additional funds. Unless we limit the rise in the global average temperature, we shall have to live with more extremes. That is why the global agreement that was reached in Paris this week is so important. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the French played a very important role in ensuring that it all came together.
	No single country, acting alone, can hope to limit climate change. Only by acting together can we hope to succeed. With nearly 200 countries coming to an agreement, the Paris conference was a clear turning point towards a sustainable and low-carbon future. If we limit the global average temperature rise, we will limit the intensity and frequency of extreme weather such as the flooding we have seen recently.

Barry Gardiner: On limiting that extreme weather, the Secretary of State will recall that the Chancellor mentioned 300,000 properties whose flood risk was being reduced. Is she aware of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management report, which has said that
	“this largely moves properties from a low risk to an even lower one”?
	In other words, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked officials to achieve the maximum number instead of the most—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Amber Rudd: I am jealous of the time the hon. Gentleman is taking off me, and I will allow the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respond on that point. I wish to make some progress, so that I can cover the interesting comments made by other Members.
	With a global agreement, we signal to business that this is a definitive turning point. Business is crucial for delivering on our ambitions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) ably set out. He was in Paris over the weekend, leading with GLOBE International, where he was accompanied and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). We know that in isolation, cuts to Britain’s own greenhouse gas emissions, which comprise just 1.2% of the global total, would do little to limit climate change. Our most important task therefore is to provide a compelling example to the rest of the world on how to cut carbon while controlling costs. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) has many spending commitments to recommend to us, but no more. In a tight spending review, he should welcome at least the increase in the renewable heat incentive budget. We are committed to meeting the UK’s 2050 target. We are on track for our next two carbon budgets, and we will be setting out our plans for meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets next year. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) questioned the fairness of the EU target of a 40% reduction by 2030, and I share his concern to ensure that it is fair. I can reassure him that we will be addressing that when we approach the effort sharing decisions next year.
	We need to get the right balance between supporting new technologies and being tough on subsidies. When costs come down, as they have for wind and solar, so, too, should support. I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) for solar, but we will also always look after the bill payer. That is why I have announced that we will support and accelerate the cost reduction also being seen in offshore wind by making funding available for a further three auctions during this Parliament. That and other measures, such as supporting new nuclear and gas-fired power stations to provide a lower carbon base load, could provide us with the energy security we need to close unabated coal. We have also committed to double spending in clean energy research and development, so that by 2020 we will be spending in excess of £400 million. That is in recognition of the fact that we will tackle climate change only if we find technologies that are both clean and cheap.

Graham Stuart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Amber Rudd: I am sorry, but I will not give way. As I was saying, that is the answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about ambition and to the question highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). We will reach this ambition—the 2° is operational; the 1.5° is the aspiration—only through our plans to link with other countries in an international low-carbon energy innovation taskforce called Mission Innovation. That goes back to the leadership to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) referred, and we believe that we can achieve that.
	The last Labour Government left behind in 2010 an energy security black hole: no nuclear power plants built; a legacy of under-investment; and low carbon targets and no plan to meet them. The advice of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) never considers the consumer. In her endless recommendations to increase subsidies, it is unknown what the Opposition actually have in their plan. It is clear to Conservative Members that a responsible national energy policy demands a willingness to take decisions today for the good of tomorrow. It is this Government who will not take any risks with our energy security, and that is why we agree with the position set out clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that shale would provide a low-carbon bridge. We will get on with the job of building a system of new energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 214, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.

Housing

John Healey: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Government’s record on housing is one of five years of failure with rising homelessness, falling home-ownership, escalating rents, deep cuts in investment and the lowest level of house-building since the 1920s; further notes that the Spending Review and Autumn Statement will not result in the homes that young people and families on ordinary incomes need being built because it cuts the level of investment from that of 2010 and fails to prioritise genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy; notes Shelter Scotland's report of September 2015, Affordable Housing Need in Scotland, which states that overall house-building levels are well below their peak in 2007 and that the number of new social homes built has fallen by 44 per cent from 2010 to 2014; notes the widespread concern that the Government’s Housing and Planning Bill will lead to the severe loss of affordable homes, will be a let-down for aspiring home-owners, and will do nothing to help England’s private renters struggling with poor conditions and high renting costs; and calls on the Government to help families who are struggling with the cost of housing, including by building more affordable homes to rent and buy.
	Above schools, wages, crime, foreign affairs and terrorism, people now place housing as their most pressing concern. It is fourth in Ipsos MORI’s latest long-running “Issues Facing Britain” survey. In all parts of this House, we know of the increasing pressure, frustration and sometimes despair that our constituents feel when a decent, affordable home to rent or buy is totally beyond them.
	That is why we have called today’s debate on the Government’s record on housing. It is a truly shameful record, with five years of failure on every front. For the Housing Minister, who I know is a fan of social media, we could call it #fiveyearsoffailure. There have been five years of failure on homelessness—[Interruption.]—which, despite the laughter of Conservative Members, we all feel keenly at Christmas. Rough sleeping has increased by more than half in the past five years, while statutory homelessness is up by more than a third and is rising rapidly.
	There have been five years of failure on home ownership. The rate of home ownership has fallen each and every year since 2010, and the total number of home-owning households in this country is now more than 200,000 fewer than when the Tories took control. It is young people who are being hit the hardest, with the number of homeowners under the age of 35 down by a fifth in the past five years.
	There have been five years of failure on private rents. While incomes have stagnated, private rents on new lets have soared—up by £1,400 a year—since 2010.
	There have been five years of failure on housing benefit costs, which rose by £4.3 billion in the last Parliament, despite punishing cuts such as the bedroom tax, even as housing investment was slashed.
	Finally, there have been five years of failure on house building. The House of Commons Library has confirmed to me that the previous Government built fewer new homes than any peacetime Government since David Lloyd George’s in the 1920s.

Chris Philp: Speaking of house building, is not the most important statistic that, in the last year of the last Labour Government, on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, there were 124,000 housing starts across the UK, whereas last year that figure had gone up to 165,000, which is a very impressive record? If he is so concerned about the topic, why did he not—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think you intend to speak, don’t you?

Chris Philp: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: In which case, it should be a very short intervention. I do not think we need to hear any more, because I want to get you on the list.

John Healey: The statistic that matters most is the number of homes that were actually built. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 2009 saw the lowest level of house building under 13 years of Labour, but that figure was still higher than that in the best year in the past five years of a Tory Government.
	There have been five years of failure on every front, by every measure and in every area. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave a speech in which housing was a central theme. He said—I am not making this up—that
	“this is a government that delivers”.
	Well, it does not deliver on housing. The Government spent the last five years blaming Labour, but they have their own track record now—and it is one of five years of failure on housing under Conservative Ministers.
	The Chancellor gave his autumn statement and spending review three weeks ago and, again, housing was a central theme.

Andrew Griffiths: Doubling!

John Healey: That is exactly what the Chancellor said:
	“We’re doubling the money for housing to build 400,000 new affordable homes”.
	After the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Government’s annual investment in housing will be £1.7 billion. Under the money inherited in 2010 from Labour, it was £3.1 billion. That is not an increase, but a cut—it is not a doubling, but a halving—of vital investment in housing in our country for our people.

Bob Neill: The right hon. Gentleman was a long-serving Minister. Will he reflect on the fact that, on his Government’s watch, the number of households on the housing waiting list went up from 1 million to 1.8 million and that there were 420,000 fewer social homes to rent at the end of his term in office than before? Is that not 13 years of failure?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that, under 13 years of Labour, more than 2 million new homes were built in this country and the number of homeowners rose by more than 1 million, but in the five years under his Government that figure has fallen by more than 200,000. So much for the party of the so-called homeowners.

Jim Cunningham: We should remind the Government that it was the Conservatives, when they were last in power, who stopped local authorities building social housing. As a result, rents have gone through the roof and young people cannot get a house today.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. He probably shares my view of our own Labour record. We are deeply proud of the billions of investment we made to make homes decent again, but we were perhaps too slow to start building new homes. When I was the Minister for Housing in the final year of the previous Labour Government, we got under way the largest council house building programme we had had for more than two decades. For the first time, councils were able to get the support on the same terms as housing associations to build the new affordable homes that were so badly needed in this country.
	I want to return to the Chancellor’s boast about doubling the money for housing for 400,000 new affordable homes. It was not a doubling, but a halving of the investment under Labour. Most of those 400,000 homes had been announced before, so there is also double counting. Finally, many of the new homes will not be affordable for those on ordinary incomes either to rent or to buy. I would say to the Minister that we perhaps need a new hashtag. How about #fivemoreyearsoffailure?

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about just how affordable the new affordable homes are likely to be. The data I have seen show that, in areas such as Stockport, somebody would need an average income of about £53,000 just to have a deposit for one of the new starter homes.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. I will come on to starter homes and how Tory Ministers try to fiddle the figures by fiddling the definition, but this is not the first time they have redefined what constitutes “affordable”. The level of so-called affordable rented homes we are now seeing in many parts of London means that rents are more than £1,000 each month. That may be affordable in their book, but for many people—with ordinary jobs, on ordinary incomes—it is totally beyond their reach. More is required of this Government to help the people who are working hard and struggling most.

Stewart Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He did not attend the Housing and Planning Public Bill Committee, for the reasons he has given us, but will he confirm that it was comprehensively demonstrated by all the witnesses during the evidence sessions that there was no evidence that starter homes would be unaffordable for anyone north of a line between the Bristol channel and the Wash—most of the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside, and the east and west midlands?

John Healey: I am not sure how much attention the hon. Gentleman was paying. He should have looked at the reports from Savills and from Shelter, and he should have listened to my hon. Friends who led for Labour so ably and so strongly throughout the many scrutiny sessions in Committee. I want to the return to the fact that we have seen such a serious failure during the past five years under Conservative Governments.

Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the forced sale of council homes will exacerbate the homelessness crisis? Will he encourage the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to speak in this debate to set out his view of the potential for extending Help to Buy to pay for the voluntary right to buy for housing associations?

John Healey: My hon. Friend led in making those very arguments in Committee, and I hope we will get a chance to make those arguments again when the Bill returns to the House straight after the Christmas recess. He asked for my view about whether the forced sale of council homes, particularly in London, is likely to lead to a rise in homelessness. I agree with him that it will. In some ways, however, it is much more significant that the Conservative-led Local Government Association agrees, which is clearly why it opposes the plan. It has warned of the consequences,
	“in particular on council waiting lists, homelessness and housing benefit.”
	In many ways, these are not simply abstract political arguments or dry statistics, but the lives of our friends, our neighbours and our constituents: the young couple on average income who want to start a family, but are now less, not more, likely to be able to get a home of their own; the family, renting privately, whose kids—like 1.4 million others in the same situation—are less, not more, likely to go through school without being forced out by their landlords and forced to move areas; and the pensioner needing affordable supported accommodation who is now less, not more, likely to find a suitable home and the help they need. These are the human stories of this housing crisis, which has worsened during the past five years.

Steve McCabe: Do we not need a bit of contrition, rather than laughter and synthetic anger, from Government Members? Is it not a fact that homelessness and rough sleeping have risen 55% since the Prime Minister took office, even though he said they were a public disgrace?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. He will remember how serious the levels of homelessness and rough sleeping were when Labour came to office in 1997 and how they fell with the policies that we put in place over 13 years. He is right to say that he, like Members on both sides of the House, has seen homelessness and rough sleeping rising again. We should pause ahead of the Christmas period, reflect on that and ask hard questions of the Housing Minister about why it is happening, what he will do about it and, in particular, what he will do over the Christmas period to help.

Jake Berry: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that homelessness peaked in 2004. He makes the serious point that we should all consider homelessness at Christmas. That peak came under a Labour Government, but I am not making a political point. As he has worked on this issue and will have been involved in part of the solution, perhaps he can tell the House what he believes the solution is.

John Healey: I was, indeed, involved in part of the solution. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that part of the solution is not the deep cuts in local council budgets that we will hear the detail of later this week. Part of the solution is not cutting the rents for supported housing, because that will lead to a cut in the provision for many of the most vulnerable people in this country.
	Unfortunately, we are still close to the start of a five-year Parliament. This is the most crucial part of the political cycle, when policy direction is set. It should be a time for stock-taking and fresh thinking, but the Budget, the autumn statement and the Housing and Planning Bill do nothing to correct the causes of the five years of failure and, in many areas, will make problems much worse.

Alberto Costa: The right hon. Gentleman is raising very serious matters. If his facts are correct, why did the property website Zoopla state just before the general election earlier this year:
	“A win for the Labour party in the General Election could spell trouble for first-time buyers”?
	Why would Zoopla have said that?

John Healey: Search me, guv. Ask Zoopla. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I’m not sure I’ll bother, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is not listening anyway.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is a very good point. I am struggling to hear the shadow Minister express his views on housing. Can we please be a bit more tolerant and have less shouting?

Rob Marris: rose—

John Healey: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Conservatives took some responsibility for their failure in government? Their housing policy has been based on a misunderstanding of capitalism. It has all been focused on helping people to buy one of the insufficient number of houses, rather than on increasing the supply.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I also say that a lot of Members want to speak? If we are going to have interventions, let us make them short.

John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a really important point that I hope will be a point of debate this afternoon. A serious question that must be asked in respect of the plans before us is whether it is the right use of public money to subsidise the demand for new housing, at a time when the housing market in many parts of the country is already out of control.

Anne Main: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: No, I will make some progress. If the hon. Lady really wants to intervene later, I will give way.
	At this point in the political cycle, we need to look at what is ahead. Two areas demonstrate the direction that the Tory Government are taking on housing and serve as a warning of what is to come. The first is a systematic attack on housing opportunity for young people and families on ordinary incomes, the very people the housing market is failing most at the moment. Ministers have launched a full-frontal assault on council and housing association homes which will hit those on low and middle incomes hardest. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the result of both the Budget and the autumn statement together will be 34,000 fewer housing association homes built. Meanwhile, the Housing and Planning Bill strangles the ability and obligation of both private and public sectors to build the affordable homes to rent and to buy that are badly needed in both urban and rural areas alike.
	In addition there is an extraordinary forced sell-off of council homes to fund an extension of the right to buy, with no prospect or commitment, as Labour has urged, of like-for-like, one-for-one replacements in the local area. I have to say that in many areas of the country, both rural and urban but especially in London, these council homes will go not to families struggling to buy, but to speculators, second homeowners, and buy-to-let landlords—and of course the greater the demand for affordable housing in an area, the higher the value of the houses, and the more the Chancellor will take in his annual levy.

Maria Caulfield: Does the shadow Minister not agree that council house building is actually at a record 23-year high and that more council housing has been built in the last five years than under the 13 years of the last Labour Government?

John Healey: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. If she looks at the Homes and Communities Agency data, they will confirm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), a member of the Select Committee, said at DCLG questions yesterday—that more than eight in 10 of the social homes and council homes built under the hon. Lady’s Government over the last five years were started and funded under the Labour programme.

Helen Goodman: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the point about speculation, is he aware that the largest amount of foreign money coming into the London property market is from Russia and the average price Russians pay is £6.3 million?

John Healey: That detail had escaped me, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it.

Graham Jones: I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me that it is time to kill this myth that the Tories are the people’s friend and that they build council houses. The reality is that those council houses were left in a right mess by the previous Tory Government and the last Labour Government had to put a large amount of money into refurbishing them. It was a disgraceful legacy.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. The last Labour Government invested £22 billion to bring homes that were barely decent up to scratch—some 1.4 million council homes were given new kitchens, central heating, doors that fitted, double-glazing. Those homes were, for the first time, fit to live in, but they had been left as a legacy from the previous Tory Government. My fear for the future is that when Labour gets back into government, we will be faced with a similar legacy of neglect of our council housing.
	Over the next five years, we look ahead to a huge loss of affordable homes to rent and to buy in this country. In total, the Chartered Institute of Housing expects the loss of 195,000 affordable homes for social rent over the next five years.
	On top of this, in the very last sitting of the Housing and Planning Bill Committee, Ministers introduced plans to scrap the secure tenancies that Margaret Thatcher herself brought in for council tenants, restricting them instead to fixed-term tenancies of between two and five years. So the message from this Government could not be clearer: “If you’re on a low or middle income and rent a council home, then a stable family home is too good for the likes of you.”

Wes Streeting: Thanks to years of Tory leadership in Redbridge, we have the lowest amount of social housing stock in London. Does my right hon. Friend also know that one in 27 households in the private rented sector is at risk of eviction because of a whole load of factors, the majority of which are due to the Government’s policies?

John Healey: I do indeed, and I say to the Minister, because there is still time for him to think again, that the Housing and Planning Bill is a huge missed opportunity to help 11 million people who live in the private rented sector without the security to start their lives and bring up their families. He could legislate for longer tenancies, better consumer rights, and better and more decent standards and obligations on landlords. He has refused to do that so far. I hope that he will think again.

Boris Johnson: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up one point upon which I—and, I am sure, many people—am still in doubt. Is he in favour of giving housing association tenants the right to buy their home? Is he in favour of aspiration for those people to buy homes, in the way that Opposition Members have done? Yes or no?

John Healey: I am certainly in favour of aspiration and of home ownership. Under the last Labour Government, the number of homeowners increased by more than 1 million. However, I confirmed on Second Reading that we will oppose right to buy funded by forced sale of council homes because it will lead to a huge loss of affordable homes to rent and buy that people in this country need. That policy will penalise people on ordinary, modest incomes.

Clive Betts: Is my right hon. Friend not amazed that, despite the Government’s claim that their policy of selling off high value council homes will fund the replacement of housing association properties and council homes, as well as a contribution towards the remediation of brownfield sites, they still cannot table for hon. Members the figures to justify that?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, the Select Committee is examining those matters. It is not the first time that the sums do not add up, but if the
	Government are going to force the sale of council assets to fund the programme to extend the right to buy to housing associations, why do not they start with some of their own assets? Why do not they start by funding their policy with Government support, instead of taking it, like some medieval baron, from councils because their coffers are empty?
	Ministers made much of starter homes and there is clearly a need for more affordable homes to buy, especially given that the number has fallen in the past five years by nearly 30%. However, the Government’s starter homes will be a non-starter for families on ordinary incomes. Shelter calculates that, across the country, one would need an annual income of around £50,000 and a deposit of £40,000 to afford a starter home. In London, one would need an income of £77,000 and a deposit of £98,000. That is simply out of reach for most of those on middle incomes—working families, who need help to buy the most. Of course, there are no controls to stop those who can afford to buy without help from the Government taking advantage of the scheme. There is a big risk that those who need it least will benefit most.

Julian Knight: The right hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. If right to buy is, as he suggests, such as disaster for housing associations, why have they entered into a voluntary arrangement with the Government to deliver it? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

John Healey: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard the term, “shotgun arrangement”? If he talks to a lot of housing association chief executives, their boards or their tenants, as I have done, he will find that they feel that they are left with no choice. They do not like it, they do not believe it, they do not trust Ministers, but they signed up to it because it is the least worst option for them.
	With so many people’s dreams of buying their own home out of reach, Ministers have responded by announcing plans to fiddle the figures again, by changing the definition of affordable homes to include so-called starter homes for sale at up to £450,000. That is an insult to young people and families on ordinary incomes, and a mockery of common sense and sound policy. It is like the Health Minister tackling the GP shortage by reclassifying cashiers at Boots pharmacy as qualified doctors.
	The second area that demonstrates the direction that the Government are taking in this Parliament is the systematic side-lining of local people and local decision making. Whatever they say, Ministers’ actions are anti-localist. At every turn since the election, housing policy has been set to undermine the say of local people and override their local representatives. The Housing and Planning Bill puts 33 new centralising powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, from directing starter homes to be built instead of affordable homes, to fixing rents for so-called high-income tenants.
	Those powers include a legalised annual cash grab from councils, which totally undermines their ability to plan for housing need in their area. The Bill also rips up the contract of localising local finance for housing, which until this point has been the subject of all-party support. Ministers will have sweeping new powers to award “automatic planning permission”—the so-called
	“permission in principle”. That is not, as the House has been led to believe, simply a policy for dealing with brownfield sites; it is a power and policy for any site allocated for use in a local plan. There will be no need to apply for full planning permission, no limitations on what sort of development can be built, and no planning gain or obligation on developers. Only the technical details will be left for the elected local planning authorities to deal with.
	A host of organisations now echo Labour’s concerns about such open-ended powers, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth and the Woodland Trust. There will be deep concern in all parts of the House if the Government’s dramatic failure on housing leads to such drastic steps and denies local communities a voice on development in their areas.

Bob Neill: I am following what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but would his argument have rather more weight if he had not been part of a Government who imposed regional spatial strategies that gave no choice to local communities on how housing was imposed? Is he contradicting his own policy in government?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is a master of distraction. I am making a point about clause 1 of the Bill, and he has enough experience to know what is at stake. If he reads the Bill, I know he will be worried about the sweeping, open-ended powers that it contains. If the Minister wants those powers, he should justify that in this House and the other place during the passage of the Bill, or tighten them up so that they do what he says he wants them to do. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point, but I am not holding my breath.
	In the housing world the Minister has become known as “Mr Million Homes”. He said:
	“By the end of this Parliament success would mean that we have seen a build in total of something like a million homes”.
	In other words, an average of 200,000 homes a year. Now we know that the Minister is prone to a bit of bullish bluster, but that is going some. In his first year as Housing Minister, not 200,000, but 115,590 homes were built. Last year—the best year out of the previous Government’s five years—only 117,720 homes were built. The total number of homes built in that Government’s best year was still lower than in the worst year of the Labour Government’s 13 years, which was in the depths of the global banking crisis and recession. Even the Prime Minister has not gone as far as the Minister.
	In conclusion, no Government can sit back and see a whole generation priced out of a decent home, and call themselves a “one nation” Government. No political party can say nothing in their manifesto to the 11 million people living in private rented accommodation, and call itself a “party of aspiration”. No party can have a programme that will lead to a huge loss of genuinely affordable housing, and call itself the “party of working people”. This country has seen five years of failure on housing under Conservative Ministers. People desperately need and deserve better, and during this Parliament, this party—the Labour party—will prove itself to be the party of working people, of aspiration, and of one nation.

Brandon Lewis: I warmly thank Her Majesty’s Opposition for choosing the subject of today’s debate. It is an important subject, and I am always eager to compare and contrast our records on housing. It is now five months since the previous such debate, and much has changed. In that time, we have announced the largest Government house building programme for 40 years. And of course, we now have a new shadow Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). He was briefly Minister for Housing at the end of the last Labour Government, so this is rather a “Back to the Future” experience. I think I am now on my third shadow Housing Minister.
	If we continue with that “Back to the Future” analogy, I recall that it is the third part of the trilogy—the one about cowboys—that nobody really likes very much. The question is: which “Back to the Future” film are we dealing with here? I hope it is not the cowboy one, but I also hope it is not the Soviet version from 1973. I should warn any hon. Members who do not have this kind of film library at home that that is a terrifying tale, in which Ivan the Terrible is accidentally transported into the future to become the superintendent of an apartment building in Moscow. Who knows? Stranger things are happening in the Labour party.
	Shadow Minister might come and go, but one thing remains the same: the curious phenomenon of Labour Members claiming that their record is preferable to ours. The right hon. Gentleman condemns our plans to support the aspirations of home buyers but, in a speech lasting more than 32 minutes, he did not suggest any alternatives. He talks about a housing crisis yet fails to admit who created it. And he claims that he will take Labour’s record over ours without any rational justification for his preference.

Anne Main: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the fact that when Labour estimated in 2003-04 that only 5,000 to 13,000 Polish migrants would come in, more than 100,000 actually did so? Where did the Labour Government think those people were going to live? Does my hon. Friend think that might be part of the issue?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne has put on record his views on home ownership and house building, certainly going back to 2005. Obviously, we have challenges going right across as our population grows.
	Let me remind the House of the situation we inherited in 2010. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends who were not here before then will be interested to know about this. We inherited: a housing bubble that burst with devastating consequences; an industry in debt; sites mothballed; workers laid off; skills lost; a loss of 420,000 affordable homes; rocketing waiting lists; and collapsing right-to-buy sales. In their 13 years in office, the Labour Government built only one home for every 170 that were sold. There was a sustained fall in home ownership. To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well, because he himself said,
	“I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing”.
	It was no coincidence that that disregard for aspiring home owners was matched by chaos in the regulation of lending, a planning system in disarray controlled from the centre, a post-war low in house building by councils and the lowest level of house building since the 1920s.

Stewart Jackson: Is my hon. Friend as disappointed as I am that in the course of the 32-minute churlish whinge-athon by the Opposition spokesman, he could not even give this Government credit for using the Housing and Planning Bill to tackle slum landlords? The Labour Government did nothing about that in 13 years.

Brandon Lewis: Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne has not been involved in the Bill’s progress in Committee, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has been. That might be why, despite what is in the Opposition motion, he has oddly not picked up on the fact that we are going further to crack down on and drive out rogue landlords than any Government have done before. The previous Labour Government oversaw the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, with just 88,000 starts being overseen by the right hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and, of course, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne. That was their housing crisis, that was their record, and that is the state of affairs that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne claims the public should prefer.

Dawn Butler: Does the Minister feel that those people who voted Tory at the last election will be surprised by this Housing and Planning Bill?

Brandon Lewis: As it contains two of our key manifesto pledges, on which we are mandated to deliver, I suspect that people will be pleased to see that we are a Government who are getting on and delivering for the people of this country. To take the hon. Lady’s very direct question, the public gave their verdict on the performance of the last Government at two general elections. At the last time of asking, the electorate were offered by the Opposition party a reprise of Labour’s centrally controlled, top-down housing nightmare—land grabs, the mansion tax, rent controls, red tape and restrictions on right to buy.

Victoria Borwick: Is the Minister pleased to see how many people have already expressed their interest in our aspirational policy and are already queuing up to take advantage of it?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne does not seem to want to give housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their home, even though some 11,000 people have already expressed their interest in doing just that.
	The public did consider the cocktail of regressive options being put forward by the main Opposition party, and they politely declined to take it up.

Wes Streeting: Actually, people in Redbridge were tired of the Conservatives running the council, which is why they elected a Labour council in May 2014. One of our pledges—I am still an unpaid councillor in Redbridge —was to introduce a landlord licensing scheme. When can we expect to hear from the Minister’s Department the go-ahead to deliver the manifesto pledge that so many residents are crying out for?

Brandon Lewis: Obviously, we took through selective licensing just before the general election. That cracked down on rogue landlords, which are mentioned in the Bill. I will be coming back to that matter as we make progress with the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s residents will be delighted to see that we are going further than any Labour Government ever did. Under our watch, the number of first-time buyers doubled, the number of new homes doubled and public support for new house building doubled.

Steve McCabe: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is rising to congratulate us on our success.

Steve McCabe: Well, actually I do want to congratulate the Minister on his measures to tackle rogue landlords. It is a step forward. Does he think it would be a good idea also to tackle rogue developers, so that we do not have an explosion of rogue landlords?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to explain what he means by rogue developers. Certainly, I want to ensure that good quality developers are building the houses that we need across the country for the people who need them.

Helen Goodman: I thank the Minister for giving way. May I suggest that he speaks to Mr Toon, the economic director of the National Crime Agency, who says that,
	“the London property market has been skewed by laundered money.”
	He said that prices are being artificially driven up through the use of the proceeds of crime. If he wants to do something, he should just pick up the phone.

Brandon Lewis: Obviously, I would be happy to support anybody who is looking to crack down on crime in London. Equally, I know that the hon. Lady seems to think that affordable houses in London start at £6 million. That may be so for those on the Labour Benches, but not for those of us on the Government Benches.

Graham Jones: I thank the Minister for giving way. In this long list of successes, will he include that wonderful policy, the green deal?

Brandon Lewis: One day, the hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues will intervene to explain the wonders of eco-towns and just how many got built under the Labour Government.

Bob Neill: Perhaps I could bring my hon. Friend back to the London housing market. Does he agree that one of the worst things that could happen to the London housing market is the imposition of rent controls on the private sector, as it invariably drives up costs, reduces supply and encourages the bad landlord rather than the good one whom we need to see in the capital?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One lesson we have learned from around the world, in places such as New York, is that rent controls simply drive down supply. They drive a black market and send rents upwards. Certainly, it is not something that we will be seeing under this Government.

Andrew Smith: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will make a little more progress, and then I will take some more interventions.
	Since 2010, we have helped more than 270,000 households buy a home through Government schemes. We have provided more than 270,000 affordable homes to rent, which went beyond our target, nearly one third of which were in London. We are the first Government since the 1980s to finish a term of office with a higher stock of affordable homes than we started with.
	I gently remind the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, who has set out his preference for council house building, that twice as many council homes were built in the past five years of our Government than were built during 13 years of the Labour Government. More new council housing was started in London last year than during the whole of the Labour Government, shocking as that may seem. In all, £20 billion was invested over the course of the last Parliament, achieving the same rate of affordable house building with half the rate of grant as under the Labour Government.
	In many ways, that is a clear metaphor for our record on housing: building more for less and doing it faster. We were not afraid of difficult decisions and of doing things differently. That has continued. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned our decision to end lifetime tenancies for new tenants to ensure that we make the best use of social housing based on need and income.

Clive Efford: When the Minister introduced that amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill, he referred to 380 households that occupy social housing with two or more spare bedrooms, and cited that as a reason for wanting to manage the stock more efficiently and to move people around social housing. Given that the Government are concerned about under-occupation, is it their policy not to allow people who under-occupy properties the right to buy?

Brandon Lewis: On lifetime tenancies, it is only right that tenancies are reviewed after several years to identify whether the circumstances of tenants have changed. Through the voluntary extension of right to buy—it will be for housing associations to decide—we want to extend that opportunity to all 1.3 million people.

Clive Efford: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will give way in just a moment.
	Of course, that move was opposed by the Labour party, which prefers renters to remain renters—

Clive Efford: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Efford, you have to sit back down. The Minister has given way once and he will give way again, but you can’t just stand there—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but you just can’t hang around stood up.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but the reason I tried to intervene again is that the Minister, discourteously, completely ignored the point I made, presumably because it was too awkward for him.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will make the decisions. That is not a point of order. I hope you are not trying to reflect on the Chair. [Interruption.] In which case, you don’t need to be stood up waiting for the Minister to give way again. I am sure the Minister will wish to give way on his terms, and not on your terms or mine.

Brandon Lewis: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As it happens, I have outlined our intention to extend right to buy to all social housing tenants. I am delighted that housing associations are playing their part.

Jake Berry: Will my hon. Friend update the House and say whether he has had any representations from the housing sector or from the Labour party on reintroducing lifetime tenure for those in social housing? If that happened, what will be the effect on the market?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point—that silence has been very stark.
	Our plans for housing are delivering but I will be absolutely up front about this: it is clear that we must do more to meet the housing needs of our nation. If our task during the last Parliament was to rescue the housing market, now we must supercharge it.

Jo Cox: Does the Minister accept the Office for Budget Responsibility estimate that, as a result of the July Budget and the November spending review, the Government will build 34,000 fewer homes by 2020 than previously forecast?

Brandon Lewis: I will come to housing associations in a few moments but, as I told the Communities and Local Government Committee this morning, housing associations have an exciting opportunity. I would argue that they will be able to access and realise assets to build more homes than ever before.

Andrew Smith: rose—

Clive Betts: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I was going to make progress but I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Clive Betts: I thank the Minister for giving way. To go back to supercharging, some of us were pleased when the Government made a commitment to build 1 million new homes in this Parliament. Is that still Government policy and a commitment, or has it been downgraded to an aspiration?

Brandon Lewis: To be fair to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, he quoted me spot on in his opening remarks. It is absolutely still our ambition to build 1 million homes. We need to be ambitious about building new homes, but this is not solely about the number of new homes. We are determined not just to halt but to reverse the slide in home ownership that the
	Labour party oversaw. With so many people being kept off the housing ladder for so long, we are determined to deliver on our promises quickly.

James Cartlidge: On the measures to increase home ownership, which contrast with the inaction from the Labour party, is not one of the most radical measures we have introduced to support first-time buyers the levelling of the playing field between them and the people who wish to buy property to rent out to those same frustrated first-time buyers?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point—one he has raised a number of times in the House. I am pleased we are able to more forward and deliver on something that will, as he rightly says, level the playing field.

Andrew Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I will make a bit more progress and then I will take more interventions.
	For the reasons that I have given, in the spending review we announced the biggest investment in housing for 40 years. We are determined to invest in what matters most to young people and to British families. We want to pay off Labour’s debt and make sure we build the homes our country needs. Both are required to make this the turnaround decade.
	In the spending review, the Chancellor said, “We choose housing” and delivered a further £20 billion. Our work will include: major investments in large-scale projects, such as Ebbsfleet garden city, Bicester, Barking riverside and Northstowe; £7.5 billion to extend the Help to Buy equity loan scheme until 2021; and supporting the purchase of 145,000 new build homes. In London, we are doubling the value of equity loans to 40%, providing the capital’s aspiring home owners with a better chance to buy. A new Help to Buy ISA is helping buyers across the country to save for a deposit.
	The brand new Help to Buy shared ownership will deliver a further 135,000 homes by removing many of the restrictions that have held back shared ownership. For example, an aspiring home owner in Yorkshire can get on the housing ladder with a deposit of just £1,400. I am sure the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will be encouraging his constituents to apply. Let me provide the House with some clear examples of why this matters. In the south-east, a deposit could be as low as £2,400, and in London £3,400. Our plans for shared ownership will make 175,000 more people eligible for home ownership. Just last week, the Prime Minister visited a family in Burton and I visited one in Didcot. They were excited for the future and the possibilities home ownership opens up to them. These possibilities will be open to anyone of any occupation as long as they earn under £80,000, or £90,000 in London.
	We will provide other opportunities for working people, too: a £1 billion housing delivery fund to support small and custom builders; £8 billion to build 450,000 affordable homes; 100,000 homes for affordable rent; and, yes, 200,000 affordable homes will be starter homes available to young first-time buyers, with a 20% discount. That is the largest affordable housebuilding programme for many decades. Starter homes will be transformational.
	Opposition Members may laugh and pour scorn on starter homes, and go against the aspirations of first-time buyers, but I ask Members across the House just to pause and think for a moment. A first-time buyer getting a 20% discount on a new home, linking that with a 5% deposit thanks to Help to Buy, saves thousands. For example, a two-bedroom home in Durham—in the constituency of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods)—can be bought for just under £150,000. With 20% off, that will be £120,000. If used with Help to Buy, it means a first-time buyer can get a house with a mortgage of £90,000 and a deposit of only £6,000.

Andrew Slaughter: The average price of a property, according to the Metro today, is now over £1 million in my constituency. To get a starter home, if one could possibly be found for £450,000, an income of over £101,000 is needed. Is that what the Minister has in mind as affordable housing? Pathetic!

Brandon Lewis: That was almost a reasonable attempt by the hon. Gentleman, but let me just give him some facts for London. The average first-time buyer home is less than the cost of an average home generally. For example, in London an average first-time buyer home is £364,000. We recognise that that is a challenge, but with a 20% discount it will cost £291,000. If used with the Help to Buy scheme, a first-time buyer can buy that home for £174,000 with a deposit of just £14,500. I also point the hon. Gentleman to my comments of a few moments ago: shared ownership, even in London, means getting on the home ownership ladder for just under £3,500. We make no apology for our focus on affordable homeownership.

Boris Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his remarks, and here is one more statistic: the massive expansion in “part buy, part rent” schemes, which he is helping us to oversee in London, has already helped 52,000 families, on an average household income of £37,000, into homes they partially own and will own more of in the future. That is the Conservative policy.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend highlights the reality and what the ambition should be. London is a shining example of what a city can achieve under the leadership of a powerful Mayor. He has overseen the delivery of more than 67,000 affordable homes since the mess we inherited in 2010, and we want to build on that, which is why we are looking to devolve more powers to mayoral London and enable my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) to take forward my hon. Friend’s work. We make no apology for focusing on affordable home ownership, while Labour does everything it can to deny people the chance to own their own home. It is what people want; buying a home is an aspiration shared by the vast majority of the public—86% say they would choose to buy their own property—which might partly explain the result at the general election, when Labour was ignored by the public.

Bob Neill: The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of delivering on aspiration, but is he not also right to contrast the delivery by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) with the complete failure of the top-down dirigiste policies of the former Mayor of London, who I gather now advises the leader of the Labour party?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and highlights the mess inherited nationally and in London. I hope we can build on our work delivering for our country, following the general election result, by ensuring good governance in London with another Conservative Mayor next year.

Andrew Smith: The Minister talks about aspiration, but what about the aspiration of people on low incomes in my constituency for whom the sorts of figures he is talking about are completely out of reach and who are being shunted out of Oxford because the housing allowance will not cover rents in the private rented sector? What about their aspirations and chances of a decent life?

Brandon Lewis: And there was I thinking the right hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate my hon. Friend the Mayor of London on his excellent work. It is important that he considers the whole ambit of the Housing and Planning Bill and our policies elsewhere, which are providing a wide offer across all tenures and types of housing and, with those £1,400 deposits to help people into those homes, making sure that, in areas such as his, shared ownership is a real possibility.
	For too many people, the aspiration and the reality of home ownership are drifting apart. The decline in home ownership is not just an economic problem but a social failure. We risk creating a generation of young people exiled from home ownership. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne might not consider the decline in home ownership since 2005 to be such a bad thing, but we disagree. He might not care, but we do. We care about young people worse off than their parents, compelled to leave the communities they love and grew up in or to decline good job opportunities because local housing is too expensive. That is why we must build more homes. Everyone in the House has a duty to make that case and, along with local authorities, to show good leadership. We have a duty not just to say that we need to build more homes somewhere else, but to build—and to make the case for building—more homes in all our communities. This will be a defining challenge of our generation.

Mims Davies: During the election, I received phone calls from people who had been in their homes for some time and were delighted to get the opportunity to buy them. On local plans and Labour’s top-down approach, is it not perfectly possible to build good-quality homes with a good local plan?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that we show good local leadership and deliver good local plans setting out where homes can be built in communities and outlining the aspiration for good-quality homes and good-quality design. That is what local authorities and we in the House have a duty to do and what my hon. Friend has championed in the House over the last few months. This will be a defining challenge for our generation, yet the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, who spoke for more than
	32 minutes, gave not an iota of a start of a Labour policy to tackle this problem. Instead, he fell back on outdated politics. I am afraid it was the Soviet version of “Back to the Future” after all. There is the lazy assumption that there is a contradiction between supporting the dreams of home buyers and ensuring that more affordable homes are built. Nowhere is this clearer seen than in the right hon. Gentleman’s opposition to our extension of right to buy for housing association tenants.
	In the last Parliament, we dramatically improved the right to buy for council tenants, with 47,000 tenants seizing this opportunity and over 80% of the sales occurring under the reinvigorated scheme, yet 1.3 million social tenants in housing association properties continue to get little or no assistance. That cannot be right. We promised the electorate that we would end this unfairness.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: No, not at the moment.
	Housing associations have recognised this inequality and have signed an offer to the Government that we have accepted—a historic agreement to end it. I thank the housing associations for doing that, and I applaud them for their forward thinking and their eagerness to help tenants own their own property, especially in light of the fact that this has bitterly disappointed the Opposition. Clearly, the housing associations have not followed the Labour party script and fallen obediently into line. Instead, what housing associations are doing is giving tenants what they want. That should not be a surprise, because the mission of housing associations is to deliver for their tenants. They are now passionate about doing that, providing tenants with an option to buy their home and a ladder to opportunity. Every property sold will lead to an extra home being built.

Julian Knight: Is the Minister aware that in the Select Committee I asked three leaders of housing associations whether they thought that Government policy would lead to their building more affordable homes to buy, and the majority agreed that it would?

Brandon Lewis: As my hon. Friend will know, having given evidence after being quizzed by the Select Committee, I am an avid proponent of what it does, and my hon. Friend makes the very good point that the policy will increase housing supply. The reality is that every property sold brings in money that will mean that extra homes get built—housing supply will go up. So it is time to end the baseless scare story that right to buy reduces the number of homes, particularly in London.
	Let me provide hon. Members with some figures. After we reinvigorated the scheme for council tenants in London, 536 additional homes were sold in the first year, and 1,139 were built. Yes, hon. Members heard that correctly: two for one on right to buy homes in London already. We are building even more, and that success will now be repeated on a much grander scale.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he will, I hope, forgive my scepticism, given that in the Stockport part of my constituency, there have been 184 sales of council homes under right to buy over the last three years—yet not one single right to buy replacement.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman’s council will want to listen to him and get on with building more homes. There is £2 billion-worth of headroom for all local authorities to build homes, but what I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that right across the scheme, housing associations will build a home for every home sold. Even under the reinvigorated scheme across this country, we are seeing one for one, while in London, as I say, we are already seeing two homes built for every one sold.

Clive Efford: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make some more progress.
	We are building even more, and that success will be repeated on a grander scale. Whether it be through right to buy, starter homes or Help to Buy: when buyers can buy, builders can build. We can support and we will support the aspirations of hard-working people. These plans are at the heart of our ambition to build those 1 million new homes. We are clear that we must go further and faster in all areas of housing supply. The Housing and Planning Bill is part of that, and it will give housebuilders and local decision makers the tools and confidence to deliver more homes.
	I know that Members of all parties will want building on brownfield land to be the first choice at all times. Under this Government, brownfield land will be prioritised. New homes will be built near existing residents, so that their green belt and local countryside is protected. Regenerating eyesores and derelict land to create modern homes for the next generation is the opportunity that lies ahead of us. A new statutory register of brownfield land will provide up-to-date and publicly available information on land suitable for housing. Forty brownfield housing zones are being created across the country, including 20 in London. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the Mayor of London, for working with us to deliver those homes in London. We want to see planning permissions in place for 90% of these sites by 2020. We will also change the parliamentary process to allow urban development corporations to be established more quickly and get on with delivering new homes at the earliest opportunity. Smaller firms in particular will benefit from quicker and simpler ways of establishing where and what they can build, especially with the new “permission in principle” for sites on the brownfield register.
	The Bill will ensure that the planning system helps to drive our increased aims for the supply of houses. During the last Parliament, we reformed and streamlined the failing top-down planning system. We dismantled regional spatial strategies, and as Planning Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to oversee the reduction of thousands of pages of planning guidance to just 50, thus creating a system that people can understand and work with. Today, local people are in control.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend mentioned making it easier to establish urban development corporations. Will he also reflect on the possibility of establishing rural development corporations, with powers to make things happen quickly?

Brandon Lewis: I am always open to any ideas from local authorities that want to drive forward growth of that kind. We are already talking to authorities that want to be part of delivering for their communities. My hon. Friend has championed that work, because he wants to see local rural areas delivering housing, and I will be happy to work with him on that.
	What we are seeing through this local system is that trusting local people and moving away from the top-down days of Labour’s past is working. We are seeing people develop their own plans for house building, and the system is faster and more efficient. Since 2010, the number of planning permissions for new homes has increased by 50%, and the number of local plans has more than doubled. Meanwhile, neighbourhood planning has captured the imagination of communities across the country. Following the holding of 125 referendums, each plan was approved by democratic mandate.
	I know that not every authority has reached the stage that we would like them all to reach with their local plans, but if plans are not in place by 2017, the Government will work with local people to ensure that that happens, so that all local areas have the plans that they want for the homes that they need.
	We have come a long way since the great housing crash of the last decade, when house building was in real danger of stopping altogether. We made the tough decisions to get Britain building again. We are still clearing up the mess that we were left, but now we are moving from rescue to recovery and thence to revival. Our investment in house building during the current Parliament is the largest for 40 years. We are determined to deliver a better housing market that secures our economic recovery, boosts productivity and rebalances the economy. Our plans go far beyond numbers, schemes and timelines; they are about people and their hopes and dreams; they are about supporting their aspirations and giving them the confidence that their hard work can be rewarded with home ownership and a place to raise their families. This is about having one nation, where whoever people are, and wherever they live, they can walk through the doors of opportunity and into a home of their own.

Alan Brown: The motion is about a scattergun approach to a very important topic. I understand it is aimed mainly at the last five years of the coalition Government and the direction they took. Of course, a standard one-line dig is now levelled at the SNP Scottish Government, as if that is somehow going to transform Labour’s fortunes north of the border.
	Current policy ties in with decades of housing policy of Governments of all hues. There is no doubt that the roots of the current housing crisis stem from the Housing Act 1980—an Act that Labour contemplated introducing before it lost power—which led to the decimation of housing stock across the UK as a whole, the biggest problem being that those houses were not replaced. The reason they were not replaced was that the moneys from the sale of stock were either used to offset debt or reclaimed by the Treasury, so it was impossible for councils to replace stock.
	Fast-forwarding to Scotland now, the SNP has recognised this issue. That is why we scrapped the right to buy. As of this year, the right to buy council houses has been eliminated in Scotland. We are also opposed to the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. By removing the right to buy and opposing it in housing associations, we preserve stock and allow better targeted new building of social housing to meet local housing needs. Labour had 13 years in power in the UK but did not do that and Labour did not do it in Scotland when it was in power for eight years. Labour could have invested in a council house building programme but, like the Tories, in the main chose to leave affordable housing to the markets and to social landlords. We have heard about the sorry state of affairs whereby the coalition Government actually built more council housing in five years than Labour did in 13.
	On the council housing theme, I point out that in Scotland the Scottish National party has now delivered more than 6,000 council houses, which compares to a grand total of six that Labour delivered when it was in power. [Interruption.] I said that right, the figures are 6,000 versus six. There is no doubt that greater council house building just makes more sense. Councils can borrow at a lower rate, they can use their land supply and they can target regeneration. Those were all things I was pleased to be involved with as a councillor for East Ayrshire Council.
	Given the increased discounts put in by the coalition Government for right to buy, what council in England is going to invest in council house building in the future, as its stock will be at risk of getting sold off? The same goes for the extended right to buy in respect of housing associations. They will not be able to borrow securely when they no longer know accurately what their future rent projection will be. Clearly, they could build houses but those could then be sold off, which distorts the whole model that housing associations were built on.
	Let me now deal with one-to-one replacement. Despite what we heard from the Minister for Housing and Planning, it is a complete sham. It is based on a three-year cycle, and I understand that that is to allow for planning and getting houses coming out of the ground. The Government say that they have already achieved the one-to-one, but they are comparing the first year’s right-to-buy sales with the replacements over a three-year period. There has been a massive increase in the right-to-buy sales since then. The Library briefing paper shows that to stay on track against the increased number of right-to-buy sales, 4,650 houses need to be built every six months. In the first six months of this year, there were only 730 starts and acquisitions, so for the first six months of this year the Government have achieved only 15% of that required target. There is therefore no doubt that going forward the one-to-one replacement will not happen. When that is combined with the forced sale of the highest-value council properties, it is clear that this Government are going to create a worse housing situation in the long term, rather than do something to sort it, despite all the bluster we have heard.
	There is still no definition of what one-to-one replacement is. The target is a national one, so it does not compel councils and housing associations to replace houses locally. It means that local needs and supply assessments do not govern the replacement strategy or housing strategy, whereas in Scotland the local needs and supply assessments are a prerequisite of Government funding The SNP Government, when funding social housing and council housing, are making sure that they take local needs and assessments into account. That is a proper strategic overview, which is the only way in which housing stock can be managed.
	Another major issue I have with the right-to-buy policy is that councils are forced to subsidise home ownership through the sales programme as well as fund the rebuild without any Government money being added. Monetary experts agree that this is the time to invest in infrastructure, and clearly housing is integral to infrastructure. If the Government used the £10 billion to £12 billion subsidy that is getting used for right to buy for housing associations, we could create additional housing. That would help to tackle the housing problem, it would create more jobs and it would lead to a more sustainable model. If the Government were actually willing to put money up front, that would also lead to Barnett consequentials for Scotland, and I know that the SNP Government would use that wisely.
	The right-to-buy measure in effect privatises housing associations. I draw a parallel with what happened during an early reading of the Scotland Bill when a proposal was made to devolve the Crown Estate. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made an impassioned defence of the Crown Estate on the basis of the principle of not imposing a change of ownership. No Conservative Member is willing to come to the defence of housing associations, yet it is the same forced change of ownership.
	Under the right to buy, large family houses have all but disappeared from council stock in some areas, and private renting has had to increase to compensate. That drives up housing benefit costs, which is counterproductive for the taxpayer in the long run. Many sold properties end up in the rented sector, especially flatted properties. Someone exercises the right to buy. Then they die; the flat is passed on to family and the family have no need for it. It ends up as a buy-to-let and the taxpayer pays more money for someone to rent that property than for the person in the council house next door. In a study by Glasgow university, this is estimated to have cost the taxpayer an extra £3 million a year in Renfrewshire alone. We also know that 40% of flats in England sold under the right to buy have ended up in the buy-to-let market. Clearly, that will only increase under the extended right to buy for housing association tenants.
	We heard in the autumn statement of an additional levy on people who buy additional homes. That is supposed to provide some income to the Treasury and have a balancing effect on the buy-to-let market, but there is no doubt that it will not do anything. It will give the Treasury a wee bit more money, but the returns that buy-to-let landlords get will at least offset that one-off levy. So the taxpayer will still pay more money in the long run in housing benefit. Going forward, it is almost guaranteed that the only way the housing benefit bill will be reduced is if the Government take further punitive measures.
	I think I have made it clear that I am against extending the right to buy to housing association tenants. It will lead to social cleansing—to a clearing out of people.

Jake Berry: They will still live in the property.

Alan Brown: They might do in the short term, but I can guarantee that they will get money from the taxpayer as a discount, then they will sell the property. Property developers will move in, they will demolish and rebuild and there will be an ongoing moving out of people. The social houses will not be rebuilt in that area so people on lower incomes will not be able to rent in the area that they were staying in.
	[Interruption.]
	I think I should be pleased. I am getting a wee bit of chunter, and that is maybe a good thing.
	Affordable homes clearly need to be truly affordable. The SNP Government have made sure that that is the case, and it is part of our plan going forward. It is not the case here in London. A cursory glance at my local estate agent in Kennington where I have a flat for when I stay down here shows that the costs for one-bedroom flats are truly mind-blowing. I can understand why London has a housing crisis.
	In Scotland the SNP Government have delivered 30,000 affordable homes since 2011, backed by £1.7 billion of investment and they are committed to 50,000 affordable homes, of which 70% will be available for social rent, if they are re-elected. Despite what the motion says, I can inform the House that the chief executive of Shelter Scotland has welcomed this commitment. We have had no such commitment from Labour as yet in Scotland.
	Although we are against the extended right to buy, we are not against home ownership. I accept that many families welcomed the original right to buy and many people have benefited from it. However, the scheme has had its time and it is time to move on. The rhetoric comes back to whether we are for or against home ownership, but that is not the right message. I have concerns that the UK Government proposals for Help to Buy and right to buy will encourage more people to borrow. At present interest rates are at an all-time low, so homes may be on the cusp of affordability. People can borrow now, but when interest rates go up there will be a risk to the affordability of those homes.
	Although the Government talk about reducing borrowing, the one-for-one replacement scheme is funded by additional borrowing by councils and housing associations. As we now know, housing associations are adding to the public debt and are on the public books, so there is no benefit from what the Government are doing. The long-term economic recovery plan appears to give a discount to home owners, but it will increase personal debt and force borrowing elsewhere for replacement housing. All in all, it is not a plan at all.
	To meet people’s requirements, we need more houses to be built, based on local need and demand. Those must be truly affordable homes that are energy efficient. This would deliver health benefits and reduce the long-term housing benefit bill. A house building programme would create jobs, improve the welfare bill as more people would be working, and improve the Treasury’s income. That is the strategic plan that the Government should work to. It is one that the Scottish Government are doing their best to implement and they certainly will do so if re-elected next year.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the first Back-Bench speaker, we are going to start with a five-minute limit and see how we get on. If interventions are kept to a minimum, we can keep it to five minutes.

Jake Berry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Given that housing is completely devolved to Scotland, it does not seem reasonable that the Scottish National party spokesperson should take up about 15 minutes, when there are many Back-Bench colleagues who want to speak. Now, you have imposed a five-minute time limit on an extremely important topic. [Interruption.]

Natascha Engel: Order. That is not a point of order. The SNP is the third party, so its spokesperson has every right to make a speech. We should keep such points of order to a minimum so that we do not eat even more into the time of Back Benchers.

Richard Bacon: The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) opened the debate by referring to five years of failure. By the way, I do not know where he is. He seems to have done a bunk. He spent a little time in the Chamber; he did not turn up to the Committee stage of the Bill at all, which for a shadow housing Minister strikes me as a little odd. What he should have referred to is five years of recovery from the dreadful situation we inherited. I enjoyed his speech.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has had to go and meet the Minister because of the decimation of the steel industry in his constituency.

Richard Bacon: I understand that. It is a very good reason for not being in the Chamber. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, particularly the reference to the money inherited from Labour. There was no money. I do not think he got the memo written by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) that played a significant part in the general election. The Prime Minister carried it round with him the whole time. The memo said that there was no money.
	We have been facing not five, but 50 years of failure from all Governments, who have worked on the flawed assumption that only the Government can solve the problem. For 50 years Government have been part of the problem, getting in the way of the supply of housing being allowed to rise to meet demand. We saw quite a lot of finger-wagging from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, but we heard nothing in the way of solutions. I listened to Opposition MPs carefully for many weeks in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee and I heard a lot of whingeing, but no real solutions. It is as if they have never asked themselves why the supply does not rise to meet demand. We do not talk about the shoe crisis, the jeans crisis, the DVD crisis or the chair crisis. Everyone in this Chamber is wearing a pair of shoes—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if I may say so, yours are very nice shoes.

James Cartlidge: I cannot see them.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend should move along a bit. They are very nice.
	No one says we need a national shoe service in order to solve the problem. We have a broken model, and it is this Government who are seeking to fix it. What I find so depressing from the Labour Benches is the paucity of ideas, the sheer paucity of radicalism. Almost every amendment proposed from the Opposition Benches during the Committee state of the Housing and Planning Bill would have had the effect of slowing things down—sand in the gears, a spanner in the works. Labour Members do not seem to recognise that they are seeking to make the central problem—the problem of supply—even worse.
	Last week Kevin McCloud addressed the all-party self-build, custom-build and independent house building group at our No. 10 summit, and I am very pleased that he was able to do so. He said:
	“The consumer has been on the receiving end of a pretty poor deal. We build some of the poorest, most expensive and smallest houses in Europe. That’s not something to celebrate.”
	Yet according to Ipsos MORI, 53% of the adult population would like to build a house at some point, 30% would like to do so in the next five years, and more than 1 million people would like to buy a site and start in the next 12 months. This can be done at scale. Adri Duivesteijn in Almere in the Netherlands has proved that it can be done, with serviced plots for over 3,000 dwellings. Cherwell District Council is now doing it in Oxfordshire, with over 1,900 serviced plots. This is the way to help supply rise to meet demand, putting the customer at the centre. Chapter 2 of the Housing and Planning Bill, on self-build and custom house building, will make that happen. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne did not mention chapter 2 or self-build and custom house building.
	There are very legitimate reasons why local authorities might want to have and maintain affordable housing. In my view, they could and should use some of their £22 billion of reserves to establish, promote and grow mutual housing co-operatives for affordable rent. That is completely normal in Berlin, where it is called genossenschaften, and elsewhere on the continent. These arrangements are not relevant in terms of right to buy because they involve people entering into contracts with each other to form part of a co-operative. I thought there was a thing called the Co-operative party, but we heard nothing about this in the Bill Committee; I was the one talking about it. Interestingly, the local authority leader who showed the most interest in it when asked about in-perpetuity social rents in big cities was the Conservative leader of Westminster council, Philippa Roe, who said very seriously, yet with a gleam in her eye, “Yes, we’re looking at that.” From Labour Members, I am afraid we heard nothing.
	We need vision and imagination, and the Bill will make that easier to achieve. Instead of building the most poorly performing, most expensive and smallest homes in Europe, we should do things differently. We should use our imagination and our knowledge to make the best places that we can, with the best-performing homes that we know how to build, in the most beautiful surroundings that we know how to create, where people will be able to find an education, find the skills they need for life, find a job they enjoy, perhaps start their own business, put down roots, build a house or have someone build a house to their own design, raise a family, and be part of a community. These are all normal human aspirations. We have to make it normal to achieve them, so that housing supply rises to meet demand here in this country, just as it does in the rest of Europe. That is the vision that we should pursue, and this Government, with the Housing and Planning Bill, will make it happen.

Julie Elliott: The Government’s record on housing over the past five years is sadly one of failure, and failure across all parts of the housing sector. It is a failure driven by short-termism, incompetence, and a lack of understanding of how millions of people live their lives. People in my constituency live very different lives from the people the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) described. Most people in my constituency earn very low wages, often on very short-term contracts. Getting a home of their own—

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Elliott: No. Getting a home of their own is a dream too far; being able to self-build is absolutely out of the question.
	Since 2010 this Government have presided over the lowest level of homes built in peacetime since the 1920s. This fact does not become dulled by repetition. Since May, muddled thinking has given way to contradictory policies. The Government give with one hand and take away with another. The Chancellor’s Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed in November’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” that Government policies since the election will lead to 34,000 fewer housing association homes being built over the next five years.
	I share the Government’s desire to create a property-owning democracy for those who want to own their own home. I can therefore only assume that the Secretary of State shares my disappointment that home ownership under this Government has fallen by over 200,000 to the lowest level in 30 years, below the EU average for the first time on record. To choose a period at random, from 1997 to 2010 the number of homeowners rose by more than 1 million. The rise of insecure working practices, such as zero-hours contracts and underemployment, has meant that many people cannot save for a deposit or get a mortgage, because they do not have a permanent contract.
	The state of social housing in many parts of the country is close to breaking point, with waiting lists of many years. If the Government are not sure why that might be the case, perhaps they could look back to 2014, when the number of homes built for social rent was at its lowest for at least two decades. The number of affordable homes provided in the past year fell by more than a quarter compared with 2010.
	This Government simply do not get social housing. I sat on the Localism Bill Committee in the last Parliament, when a Conservative member of the Committee referred to social housing as “housing of last resort.” I was born in a council house and I grew up in that house and that community—it was my home. Council housing provides a safe, warm place for millions of people to call home. It is not housing of last resort. The proposal in the Housing and Planning Bill, which is currently going through this House, to scrap tenancies for life is a disgrace, and this Government should be ashamed for proposing such a change.
	This Government have made it harder to build social homes by choking the planning system. They have consistently watered down section 106 affordable homes requirements, while in his day job as Mayor of London, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who is no longer in his place, has banned Labour councils from insisting on the building of genuine social homes through section 106 agreements in his London plan. He did that against the guidance of the planning inspector, but with the approval of the former Communities and Local Government Secretary, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles).
	With home ownership an unobtainable ambition for many, and with social housing in short supply, it should come as no surprise that the private rented sector has enjoyed tremendous growth. Although there are many good private landlords who provide decent homes for their tenants, many other tenants endure daily instability and short-term tenancies—typically of six months—as well as poor standards and rent increases at a pace that outstrips wages.
	By every metric, and in whatever part of the housing sector, the situation has deteriorated in the past five years. I hope the Government can start to address the differing and diverse needs of families across this country with a comprehensive strategy that does more than simply manage decline.

Stephen Hammond: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), but I have to say that my conclusion from looking at every metric is rather different from hers. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) opened in his usual way, but, behind his façade of bluster, the only conclusion we can draw from the statistics is that the Labour party left a housing crisis in this country. Under that Government, house building was at its lowest level since the 1920s, while the housing available for social rent decreased and the number of those on the waiting list increased.
	There are a huge number of possible solutions to that problem, but Labour Members have offered a paucity of ideas. This Government have delivered for the past five years and they are continuing to do so. They are delivering 753,000 new homes and 260,000 more affordable homes, and council house building is now at its highest level for 23 years. The Mayor of London, who is not in his place but I was pleased to see him here earlier, has a record to be proud of. He is on track to deliver those 100,000 more affordable homes over his two terms.
	Being a London Member, I was also pleased that the Chancellor, in both the autumn statement and the Budget, ensured that there was housing news and opportunity across the country. In particular, I was delighted with the extension of the very successful Help to Buy scheme—which in the last Parliament helped 120,000 households to get on the ladder—to London. That will be really important for the other measures the Government are also putting in place in London to work. It is clear that this Government do not lack ambition and that they are not complacent.
	I heard the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne ask why the Government do not sell off some of their own land. In London, the London Land Commission is going to do exactly that, which will be hugely powerful in delivering extra affordable homes during the term of office of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), when he takes over as Mayor of London. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is in his place, will know that the London Land Commission will undertake a review in a year’s time. When he looks at that review, I hope he might contemplate giving the Mayor the power to impose a duty to co-operate—or, indeed, a power to have a first right of refusal—so that if any public or local authorities drag their feet and hold back the aspiration to provide houses for Londoners, they can very clearly be told that it is their duty to co-operate with the London Land Commission and to get on with the job.
	The Budget contained several measures that will be powerful in accelerating the number of houses likely to be built in our country. In particular, in-principle permission for brownfield sites will allow developers to bring forward sites much more quickly. It will enable them to understand what can be achieved in outline. Any number of large projects may benefit from that, but equally, so will any number of small projects. If developers have the confidence to know what they can do, they will invest in the technical detail, which will in turn lead to community support for community infrastructure—it may also create opportunities for self-build property, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has reminded us—and that will provide the opportunity for quality developers to bring forward quality developments on brownfield sites. Yet, Opposition Members have told people waiting to move into such homes, “Vote Labour— it won’t happen.” It is very clear that there is a real difference between us on such ideas and aspirations.
	I know that the Minister is in the mood and has an appetite to deliver even more than the target of 1 million houses, so let me tell him that he could do a few other things. In particular, will he consider introducing a plan to allow small-scale developers—perhaps paying a small extra fee to accelerate the process—to fast-track small developments through the process more quickly? That would give us a real opportunity to bring on some of the smaller sites. We all want big developments, but small ones will help just as much.
	This Government are absolutely right to be taking action on housing, which is the most important issue for our country. It was largely ignored during the 13 years of Labour failure, but I know that this Government have the ambition to build the homes in which the people of this country want to live.

Karen Buck: I have spent too many years in the trenches of statistical warfare on housing supply, so today I want to use the few minutes available to me to talk about values.
	Conservative Members have spoken about one aspiration—the aspiration for home ownership. That is an important and vital aspiration, because most people want to own their home if they can and we should help them to do so. The fact that the Government proposals for starter homes require households in my constituency to have an income of £101,000 does not fill me with confidence that the need will be met in central London any time soon. None the less, it is an important aspiration. Mobility is another important value, because we want to make the best use of the existing housing stock and we want people to be able to move around this country for work and other purposes.
	I want to spend my few minutes talking about another value, which is the value of security. A home is not just based on an economic transaction—people do not just spend rent or mortgage payments to secure a bed for the night—but is where people bring up their family and experience community and neighbourliness, and it therefore means so much more to them. That does not disappear for people on low incomes: a home means as much to someone on a low income as it does to the millionaire who can spend £6 million to buy a home in the London luxury market.

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Karen Buck: No, I will not give way, because too many Members want to speak.
	What we have seen under this Government—although it did not start in 2010, of course—is an erosion of the principle of security. That erosion reached its nadir with the proposal to scrap the security of tenure for social housing. The proposal to scrap secure social tenancies will mean an intrusion into the lives of the poorest, and only the poorest, every few years as they are required to justify their home.
	The principle of security is being eroded in many other ways. There has been a doubling in the number of families who are bringing up children in private rented housing, where they can only rely on a 12-month assured shorthold tenancy. The Government refuse to do anything to address the desperate need for longer security for people in the private rented sector. There has been an increase in homelessness. It was coming down for many years from too high a peak under the last Labour Government, but it is soaring again. There has been a fantastic 820% increase in the number of families being held illegally in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Families are living, sometimes for years, in nightly booked temporary accommodation after they have been homeless. That has happened to my constituents. Insecurity is the new normal, but only for the poorest. Far from addressing that crisis, the Government plan to extend it and entrench it even more widely.
	The stories of my constituents and the constituents of everybody on the Opposition Benches—and, quite possibly, the stories of the constituents of Government Members that go unheard—are stories of people torn away from their children’s schools, torn away from their parents, torn away from the people they have caring responsibilities for, torn away from the volunteering they do, torn away from their part-time or even full-time jobs and torn away from their communities. It is their children, above all, who suffer. The hyper-mobility that is forced on families at the moment is bringing about worse physical health, worse mental health, higher suicide risks and worse educational achievement. We are entrenching that into the lives of the poorest. Sadly, I do not have time to tell some of those stories, although I would love to be able to do so.
	We know not just from the anecdotes, but from academic research that has been done in Australia and America, just how damaging this is. Communities suffer as well as individuals when the people who are the building blocks of communities—people who are registered to vote and who are civic participants—can no longer be so because they are forced again and again to move house. They are forced to move house every six months or every year, and now social tenants will be forced to move house every three or four years.
	I will finish with a quotation from Professor Steve Hilditch, who for over 40 years has been an academic, a manager and a deliverer of housing. He says in respect of the end of secure social tenancies:
	“Social rented housing is our most precious housing asset. Its existence broke the historic inevitability that people on low incomes and vulnerable people would also endure homelessness and dreadful housing conditions. It removed the blight of bad housing from generations of children. In my view it was the strongest mechanism of all to achieve genuine social mobility and to give children born into poor families similar opportunities to those enjoyed by better-off families.”

Robin Walker: I am grateful to the Opposition for calling a debate on affordable housing, because it gives me the opportunity to point out the very different records of Labour and my party in both national and local government in supplying affordable homes in Worcester.
	Affordable housing is one of the most pressing and important issues for me, as the MP for Worcester. It is the single most commonly raised concern at my surgeries. Although Worcester has seen nothing like the price inflation that has been seen in the south-east, the price of housing is a major worry for young people, whether they are students and apprentices setting out to rent or young professionals looking to buy their first home.
	In our beautiful county town, a city of about 100,000 people, there is rightly pressure to build affordable homes on brownfield rather than greenfield sites, both to protect the stunning Worcestershire countryside, which is such an asset to our county, and to defend the vital floodplains on which we rely each year to keep the River Severn out of homes and businesses. I was pleased to hear in a recent meeting with the Environment Agency that it rates Worcester City Council as one of the best councils in the area at using the planning system to protect its floodplains. Given that we see winter floods almost every year, that is essential.
	For as long as anyone can remember, Worcester has been bombarded by Labour leaflets telling people that Labour is the party of affordable housing. I remember fighting local election campaigns as long ago as 2001 in which every Labour leaflet was adorned with messages about affordable housing. In 2003, the Liberal Democrats went into coalition with Labour on the council, with the explicit aim of delivering more affordable houses. If Labour had any track record of success in this area, the leaflets would be understandable. Knowing the importance of affordable housing, I made it my mission to explore how much Labour administrations in the city had delivered.
	The figures from Worcester City Council tell a stark story of Labour neglect. From 1997 to 2000, a period in which Worcester had a Labour MP, a Labour-led council and—oh joy of joys—that things-can-only-get-better Labour Government in Westminster, the council built fewer than 20 affordable homes per year. Very few of these homes, and none after 1997-98, were for affordable ownership, and the abysmal record of Labour when they had complete political control of Worcester was of just 22, then 11, then 19 affordable homes delivered—these figures in a city of 100,000 people.
	Unsurprisingly, Labour was turfed out of control of Worcester in 2000 and a Conservative administration took control. What happened to affordable housing delivery when those nasty Tories took over? It rose 47% in the first year, more than doubled in the second year and then ran all the way from 2002 to 2012 at an average of 112 homes per year—five times as many as Labour had delivered. “Ah, yes,” said the Labour party, “but things slowed down after we lost power in 2010,” and yes, they did. Labour left us with the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s. It took years for the housing market to recover from the great recession that began in 2008, but in Worcester we kept on building affordable homes.
	In 2012-13 the council delivered a remarkable 117 units of affordable housing, 79% of all new homes delivered in the city that year, under a Conservative administration.

Richard Bacon: I joined the Conservative party in Worcester in 1978. Will my hon. Friend accept that it comes as no surprise to me that things are now better—under the Conservatives?

Robin Walker: I am delighted with my hon. Friend’s intervention, although he may be less delighted to hear that the year he joined the Conservative party in Worcester was the year I was born.
	What happened when Labour and the Liberal Democrats took control? Affordable housing delivery slumped, falling from 117 to 76, a decline of more than 30% in a single year. Worse still, the fall in delivery of housing meant a slowdown in receipts from the new homes bonus, a welcome financial incentive introduced by the coalition Government to support delivery of affordable housing. Not only did Labour’s chaotic year in control mean a more acute housing shortage, but it also meant damage to the city’s capital receipts.
	Fortunately, the voters of Worcester, seeing the record of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats—who, alas, are absent from this debate—elected more Conservative councillors in 2014, and those mean old Tories took back control of the council once again. The result: an immediate recovery in the number of new affordable homes. The delivery of affordable homes in Worcester in the last year is the highest on record since 1997, and out of 460 new homes delivered in the city, 260 are rated as affordable. In 2015, new homes bonus income for the city rose to £5 million. The lesson here is stark: Labour always promise affordable homes, but only the Conservatives actually deliver them.
	I know very well that there is still a great deal more demand, and the city’s own estimates suggest that this year’s record delivery is only the baseline for what is needed. In debates on building affordable homes it is often as if the only choice is to deliver them and concrete over our green fields or to give up on providing them altogether. That is simply not true. In fact, whereas a fifth of homes delivered in Labour’s one year of control were delivered on greenfield sites around Worcester, that figure has fallen, even as delivery of homes has increased, to only around 7.5% in the current year. Looking ahead, about 90% of the homes planned for in Worcester’s land supply can be delivered on brownfield sites, and I hope that figure continues to increase.
	There is much the Government can do to further support the delivery of affordable homes in brownfield sites, and I am pleased to hear about the new brownfield fund. I hope the Government will look into more mechanisms to support renting above the shop and city centre living, which I believe can both help our high streets and address the desperate need for affordable homes.
	I welcome the Government policies on Help to Buy. I have seen that for myself on the streets of Worcester, meeting people who have been able to buy their own home for the first time who would not otherwise have been able to do so. I particularly welcome the Help to Buy ISA. I also welcome the Government’s efforts to crack down on rogue landlords, going further than Labour ever did in their 13 years in office to deal with this very serious issue.
	Today’s motion is typical of the relentless negativity we see from today’s Labour party. It says nothing about the aspiration of working families to live in homes they can own, nor the steps that have been taken, greater than under 13 years of Labour, to regulate rogue landlords. I am very proud that in Worcester, under a Conservative Government and with a Conservative council, we are delivering more affordable homes than ever.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I am going to lower the limit to four minutes with immediate effect.

Helen Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on housing; it is the single biggest area of concern to my constituents. Whatever measure we take, this Government have failed to deliver the homes we need in the areas where they are needed and at the pace which is required to address a housing crisis unprecedented since the second world war. If their own measure of success is home ownership, the Government have presided over a decline in the number of homeowners of 205,000 since 2010. If their measure of success is the housing benefit bill, the current Chancellor has seen an increase of £4.3 million in that bill over the past five years, including a doubling of the number of in-work households in receipt of housing benefit.
	If the measure of success is, as it should be, the level of homelessness, there has been an increase of more than 50% in the number of people sleeping rough since 2010, and an increase in homelessness as a whole of more than a third. If the measure of success is the delivery of affordable homes, we see perhaps the Government’s most catastrophic failure: a decline of almost 75% in the delivery of new homes at genuinely affordable social rents since 2010, and a new definition of affordable rents, which makes a mockery of the term “affordable”.
	In response to that failure, the Government appear to be constructing a new set of policies around an entirely arbitrary dividing line. Let us call it the aspiration threshold. Above that line, which quantifies at a house price of £450,000 in London, or an income of £90,000 with savings of close to £100,000, the Government recognise the aspiration of us all to have a stable home for the long term, to put down roots in our community, and to know that our children can attend the same schools for as long as they need to do so. Below that line, the Government do not recognise the legitimacy of people’s aspirations. They seem to believe that the most that council tenants deserve is five years’ stability at a time. In the private rented sector, it is viewed as entirely acceptable to live with the threat of a no-fault section 21 eviction. For those people, moving their children out of a school where they are settled and away from their friends in search of an affordable home is perceived as an acceptable way to live. For those people who are paying rent so high that they cannot afford to save for a home of their own, the aspiration of home ownership becomes increasingly hard to realise.
	I do not understand why the Government are so focused on that arbitrary line. Most people in my constituency want the same thing: an affordable place of their own that is secure, safe, warm and suited to their needs. Most people do not want their aspirations to be achieved at the expense of others. Housing association tenants who would like to buy a home of their own do not want that to be at the expense of a family with two children in a one-bedroom home, whose aspiration to move to a council home big enough for their needs will not be realised if the Government force the council to sell off its larger family homes because they are the homes of highest value. We need to build more homes across all tenures, not one type of home at the expense of another.
	The Minister for Housing and Planning came to the Communities and Local Government Committee this morning, and could not give any assurances that the numbers underpinning his proposed radical reform of housing policy add up. Next month, hon. Members will be asked to vote on a set of ideologically driven, uncosted and unproven proposals in the Housing and Planning Bill, which is a pitifully poor response to the biggest housing crisis that this country has faced since the second world war. The Government have a shameful record and are making an inadequate response. I hope that they will listen and introduce a more convincing plan to tackle the crisis.

Jake Berry: I direct hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said about housing being largely about security. We must accept in this country that the British housing journey has changed. The private rented sector is now larger than the social housing sector and 11 million people live in privately rented homes. To give Members an idea of the growth in that sector, it increased by 69% between 1993 and 2013. More than 1 million families with children live in the private rented sector. I hope that the Minister will turn his attention to those families today.
	In the mid-1980s, the age of a first-time buyer was about 25. It is now over 30 and, in some parts of London, over 40. The Housing Act 1988 introduced the assured shorthold tenancy for people who rent on a short- term basis while saving for a deposit to buy a home. It was specifically designed—I went back to Hansard and had a look—for students, professionals and short-term renters. In an age when people are renting for longer and with families, I believe that the assured shorthold tenancy is no longer fit for purpose for people in the private rented sector with families.
	As the figures show, being in the private rented sector means that people move more often. People come to my advice surgery and say that they have struggled all year to save perhaps £100 a month towards a deposit to buy a house, only for those savings to be wiped out by the cost of moving, paying agency fees and a new deposit on a private rented home. That is borne out by Shelter’s statistics, which state that 60% of those in the private rented sector have no money left at the end of the month, other than to pay the rent. Santander states that 49% of people in the private rented sector have given up saving for a deposit to buy their own home altogether.
	I welcome the Government’s Help to Buy ISA, which is hugely encouraging and helps those in the private rented sector to save up a deposit. Will the Minister update the House on his progress with the family-friendly tenancy? I have sent several written questions to his Department, and I would be interested to know how many family-friendly tenancies have been taken up and what reassurance has been given to lenders. When I worked in the Downing Street policy unit on that policy, lenders were reticent to grant longer tenancies because of their nervousness about seeking possession if they went in as mortgagee in possession. If, as I suspect, the number of family-friendly tenancies taken up is low, is it time for the Government to consider legislating in that area? Given that so many houses in the private rented sector now have their rent paid by housing benefit, it is surely not unreasonable for the Government, who are paying the rent, to ask landlords to offer more security to their tenants.
	Finally, let me cover something different. As we approach Christmas we will all be thinking of homelessness, and I want to mention Joanne Atkin and Michelle Brindle in my constituency, who saw Carlos Maradona, a salesman of The Big Issue who works outside Sainsbury’s in Darwen. As well as coming to see me, they set up a crowdfunding page, so that everyone in the town could get behind Carlos at Christmas and help him to find a home. I will tweet the link after this debate, but I thought the House might be interested to know that we have already raised £1,400.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A three-minute limit must now apply to Back-Bench speeches because otherwise a lot of people will not get in.

Karin Smyth: I want to focus on supply and demand in Bristol, where the situation for buyers, and especially renters, is challenging. Information
	I have seen shows that property prices in Bristol have risen by between 7% and 9.7% in the past 12 months. Hometrack shows that of the 20 cities it monitors, only London, Cambridge and Oxford recorded a greater percentage increase than Bristol, and the influx of property investors from London and overseas is now a further influence on the Bristol housing sales market. One constituent who phoned my office told me that he was turned down for viewing a property because the estate agent had a queue of interested cash buyers.
	The pressure felt by would-be buyers will increase further with the electrification of the London to Bristol line that will reduce travel times by 15 minutes, and effectively put Bristol on the same commuter belt as Oxford. Looking ahead, Halifax estimates that national house prices will rise on average by between 4% and 6%, and in high-demand areas such as Bristol that could be up to 10%. That is possibly good for investors, landlords and those who want to buy to let, but for young people and those looking to get on the housing ladder, it is not a good picture.
	Rents have been rising throughout 2015, and they are expected to rise in 2016. This month, a local estate agent in my constituency told our local newspaper:
	“If I take our Bedminster branch, there are 15 or 20 enquiries a day for rental properties, and the supply is maybe four or five a week, so the numbers are chilling. I’m pretty sure that the stamp duty rise on second homes will have an effect. It will force people to think twice and it will take a pretty robust person to buy a property to rent out. It is a bad thing for the Government to do because there is a massive shortage of properties to rent in the Bristol area and it will exacerbate the problem.”
	Other factors that make the situation even bleaker include average prices of £210,000 and salaries of £22,000—I dispute the assertion by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about houses being affordable above a line from the Severn to the Wash. Some 10,000 people in Bristol are waiting for social housing, and thousands of properties are standing empty. Some councils in the south-west are doing good work. A local council in Plymouth has plans for homes, plans for social rent, a plan for empty homes, a charter for private rented housing and a plan for social rented housing. That is a Labour-run council—a small blot of red in the blue that is the south-west of England. Bristol and other local authorities need to learn from each other and share good practice. Also, the Government need to support local authorities that are trying to achieve something. The Government need not only ambition but a better plan.

James Cartlidge: I should like to begin by declaring my interest. I am a controlling director in a mortgage broker and property portal dedicated to shared ownership, and chairman of the all-party group on housing and planning.
	When we talk about housing at the moment, there is obviously a focus on new build and on supply, but as I said in my intervention on the Minister, I still think that one of this Government’s most radical changes is the one we are making to buy to let. In the last Labour Opposition day debate on housing, in June, I spoke on buy to let and said that I was looking for three changes from the Government, relating to the rate of stamp duty, to tax relief and to mortgages.
	Two of those changes have been delivered, including a measure on stamp duty. I said that it was completely unfair that a first-time buyer should pay the same rate of stamp duty as someone buying their 25th portfolio buy-to-let property or a second home as a holiday home. The Chancellor has had the courage to make that change, which no Labour Chancellor ever made. On tax relief, I said that it was wrong that first-time buyers or other home owners, who no longer have mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—should not have tax relief when buy-to-let landlords do so. Again, we are addressing that.
	Of course the buy-to-let change is controversial, and we are now experiencing a backlash from The Daily Telegraph and others against it. In the one minute and 44 seconds remaining, I want to remind hon. Members why it is necessary. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee’s minutes show that the rate of credit loss on buy-to-let mortgages in the UK has been about twice that for residential mortgages, despite the fact that 75% of buy-to-let lending remains interest only. In the past year, there has been £28.5 billion of lending with no repayment of the debt. For me, any area of the economy that requires tax breaks and non-repayment of debt to survive is unsustainable. The buy-to-let sector has not been sustainable.
	That does not mean that we have something against those who wish to buy a property to let. I accept that some people use such properties as their pension, and some are saying, “It’s my pension. Why are the Government hitting me?” One change that must come out of this proposal is that we have to talk, as a country, about the fundamental issue of pension reform. If we can do that, it will represent an important gain. Luke Johnson has written in The Sunday Times:
	“We cannot prosper as a nation of buy-to-let landlords; we must also produce goods and services and export to pay our way in the world.”
	That means investment—not just foreign investment but our own investment—as well as a higher savings ratio and a more sustainable economy. I believe that a key part of that will be a more sustainable housing market in which first-time buyers have a reasonable chance of buying the properties which, at the moment, are being taken from them by people who will then rent them out to those same people who want to be first-time buyers. This is a fair move and it is being brought in by this radical Conservative Government.

Richard Burgon: In the brief time available, I want to highlight the problem in Leeds, to illustrate the fact that it is indeed a nationwide problem and not one that affects only London and the south-east.
	In Leeds, buying a home is increasingly unaffordable, and that includes starter homes. According to the National Housing Federation’s paper, “Home Truths 2014/15: Yorkshire and Humber”, the current average house price in Leeds is £179,000, which is seven to eight times higher than median earnings in the city, depending on whose figures are used. That makes a mortgage unobtainable for vast swathes of the population.
	Projections from the Office for National Statistics and the House of Commons Library have suggested that by 2020, starter homes could cost around £162,000 in Leeds. If that turned out to be the case, that would be significantly below the cap. However, the average income needed for such a property would be £45,000, and the reality is that gross median income in Leeds is currently around £22,000. Unless median income doubles in the next five years, starter homes will remain unaffordable.
	Richard Lewis, Leeds City Council’s executive member for regeneration, has said that the council’s ambitions for a new generation of housing are at risk because of
	“central government’s focus on starter homes above all other types of housing and their attempts to reduce housing mix through extending right to buy and forcing the sale of council homes”.
	The right to buy sell-off of council homes is resulting in local authority housing stock being diminished, with very little replacement. Over the past three years, 1,159 Leeds local authority properties have been sold, with only 59 replacement starts—a ratio of 20:1.
	Renting is increasingly unaffordable for a wide variety of groups. The Leeds Tenants Federation states that, even in council and housing association properties, some people are spending between 40% and 70% on rent. Many in Leeds are also struggling with private rent. Indeed, the council has previously written to the Communities and Local Government Committee to say of the private rental sector that
	“rents are now taking a greater proportion of income”.
	It said:
	“There is an increasing issue of affordability across all sectors of the private rental market.”
	So there is much to do.
	The Conservatives spent the last Parliament blaming Labour, but that will not wash any more. They have their own record now, and on housing, both in Leeds and across the country, it is five years of failure on every front, with unaffordable home ownership, rising rents, deep cuts in investment and the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. There is a lot of work to be done. The blame game has to end, and the work must start and then be finished.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is as true today as it was 30 years ago that more than 80% of people aspire to buy their own home. On the other side of the equation, house builders make their living by providing as many homes as possible. There is no lack of will to build, or a lack of desire to buy. The problems are due to the supply-side issues in the marketplace. Supply is constrained by a planning process that is not fit for purpose. There is a shortage of viable land, as much of it is locked away in public sector land banks, and a major demand side issue, in that house prices are simply out of reach for far too many people.
	Fundamentally, the supply-side issue is the one that we most need to resolve. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication: build more homes and most of the problems of affordability will fall away. We are building more homes. There has been a 56% rise in housing starts since 2010, and the number is now running at 136,000 a year. Planning consents are at a post-recession high of 240,000 a year, which will inevitably lead to more homes being built.
	I welcome the provisions of the Housing and Planning Bill and its objective to increase further house building and home ownership. I welcome, too, the brownfield register, permission in principle, the simplicity of starter homes with a 20% discount, and right to buy.
	The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) may be interested to know that we took evidence from Dr Mary Taylor, the chief executive of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. She was asked whether, if there had been a one-to-one policy for right to buy, she would have got behind that policy. She said that she might well have had a different view.
	One third of all people in relative poverty are there due to housing costs alone. The additional homes created by right to buy, and funded by making greater use of taxpayer- owned assets held by local authorities, will deliver affordable homes to buy, for shared ownership, and to rent. I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) that we need longer, family-friendly tenancies and client money protection schemes for letting agents.
	Earlier, I mentioned the huge swathes of land held in the public sector. The Government have pledged to bring forward enough public sector land to build 150,000 homes over the next five years. I am concerned that this land will be released and that we may need incentives to ensure that surplus, under-utilised land in our public sector is made available for development for our housing associations and the private sector. I offer strong support for this Government’s record on housing, and believe that the new initiatives in the Housing and Planning Bill will help to deliver a housing market that works.

Jess Phillips: Successive Governments have failed to build anywhere near enough houses. The Government’s current Housing and Planning Bill at least tries to deal with some of that fallout. However, as with so many of their current policies, we are expecting those with the least resource to pay for our mistakes.
	The spare room subsidy was the first assault on the most vulnerable people to right that wrong. I worked with a young woman who, due to violent and persistent domestic abuse, needed to go into hospital to deal with her severe physical and mental health problems. For that period, her child was removed to foster care. When she returned home, she began the process of rebuilding her relations with her daughter. Her daughter remained in foster care to give them both space to recover. The period of time was such that she was considered to be under-occupying her property. She fast built up arrears and debts and was eventually evicted, leaving her with no stable home for her child to return to. That woman lost her home, her health and her daughter, and all she needed was a chance. Was it her fault that houses were not rebuilt when they were sold off? I do not think so, yet she paid the price.
	The bedroom tax was an instrument meant to encourage people to move out of properties that could be used for a bigger family, but it does not work like that if there is nowhere for them to go. It just makes money out of those who simply cannot bear it. The blunt-ended policy fails to recognise the realities of people’s lives. Some of the proposed elements of the current Housing and Planning Bill will do exactly the same.
	The Government’s intention to end lifetime and successive tenancies is meant, again, to encourage people to free-up much needed properties. That is all well and good, but similar to the problems faced by bedroom tax victims, life does not work like that. When an adult child has a choice to give up their own tenancy and livelihood to move in and care for an elderly mother or father, they have a very tough choice to make and will be unsure of their own future. When a victim of domestic violence is rehoused with her children, who have probably been through enough, will we say, “Sorry gang, you’ll have to move schools pretty much every five years”? Will the Government fund all of the new housing officers that will be needed to ensure that the system works fairly? I wonder whether any of the Ministers have sat in their local housing queue recently. I have; it takes hours to be seen.
	I do not want to stand here and moan. I want the Government to do something and have some positive suggestions. If they are going to encourage people to move in and out of social housing more frequently, they need to invest heavily in temporary accommodation. Currently, there is no temporary accommodation. The taxpayer funds bed and breakfast accommodation for families to live in—where used condoms are stuffed into the walls and there are dirty beds—when there is nowhere for them to go. The Government must invest in that. They must also look at models such as the one we have in Birmingham, where we have a social lettings agency with an honest broker, two-year tenancies and help with deposits for tenants coming out of social housing.
	The Government should look at those suggestions before they rush into something that will show up in my surgeries in glorious technicolour.

Seema Kennedy: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Last Friday, I visited a new development in my constituency, Saxon Place in Penwortham. It is mixture of family homes for rent and for sale under shared ownership. I mention that because I had the great pleasure of serving with many hon. Members on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee. There was a lot of talk about the affordability of starter homes and a lot of the conversation was very London-centric. My point is that, in many parts of the country including Lancashire, the starter and affordable homes really are affordable. On the average income in my constituency, a family could, under the shared ownership scheme, get a deposit of between £2,000 and £5,000 and have an equity stake in that house. I remind hon. Members that the world does not end at Watford Gap.
	We agree that most Britons aspire to home ownership, but we have had a problem in getting more houses built. We have a growing population and more and more people live on their own. We need to be flexible about what we build. I was particularly pleased with the measures on automatic planning permission for brownfield sites. I have experience of developing brownfield sites. In the past, remediation works were costly and difficult. The fact is that we are getting better at that and prices are coming down. The provisions will start us on the way to building more homes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, we just need to increase supply. It is not the whole answer, but we absolutely must build more homes.
	The important thing about the outline nature of that permission is that it gives reassurance to the developer that he can invest, but leaves the right amount of risk on the business rather than on the taxpayer. If we were to change the outline permission to make it more detailed, winding up in red tape, it would slow down the process, and there would be far too much onus on the taxpayer rather than on the developer. I also greatly welcome the Government’s pledge to bring forward more public sector land to build more homes.
	The Bill is forward looking. We are tackling rogue landlords, and I welcome the investment in garden cities. We need more homes and the Government are determined to deliver them. The Bill will go a great way to doing that.

Kirsten Oswald: It is evident that there are Members in the Chamber, such as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who are strong supporters of English votes for English laws and who question why Scottish Members are speaking on a matter that should be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I point out that Scotland is specifically mentioned in the motion we are debating today. The fact is that housing is an area where the headline statement of devolution is seriously undermined by a haphazard split of responsibilities between this place and the devolved Administrations. As a result, many decisions taken in this place can have serious implications for the delivery of housing policy in Scotland, and for the real issues and concerns of so many people.
	The UK Government have stated that they want to transform generation rent into generation buy. It is certainly no bad thing to buy a home, but it must be financially sustainable, it must be right for one’s circumstances and it must not be at the expense of future housing stock. The UK Government must focus on alternatives, too. We have heard concern from Members on both sides of the House about homelessness, which is a very real and very destructive issue. I gently point out that we should concern ourselves with this issue all year and not just at Christmas.
	The UK Parliament has lost its focus on the quality and quantity of housing. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) that this can be traced back to the Housing Act 1980, when the Thatcher Government introduced right to buy. The policy has been popular with beneficiaries, but it has had serious side-effects on the quality of housing in the social rented sector and in entrenching deprivations in the areas of social rented housing that have not been sold off.
	This Conservative Government are now going further than Mrs Thatcher. Owner-occupation is seen as the normal tenure for all households, regardless of income. This is exactly the approach that led to the American sub-prime scandal. Dame Kate Barker described the policy as
	“people who are just on the cusp of being able to buy”
	being nudged over the edge. It did not end well.
	The Government’s thinking is that the social rented sector is a temporary stop-gap, where tenants should not regard their residence as a permanent home. They seem keen to import the deeply damaging and socially divisive concept of welfare housing. These policies are a smash and grab raid by the Chancellor on the assets of the social rented sector. Forcing councils to sell their best assets strengthens the social segregation that scars too many parts of this country and the forced sale of housing association properties represents the abandonment of those forced to wait for years for a decent home. Even The Daily Telegraph described the policy as
	“dumb, economically illiterate…morally wrong…and close to absurd”.
	The contrast between this shambles and the action being taken by the Scottish Government could not be starker. Instead of viewing housing as a weapon in a political game, the Scottish Government act on the basis that decent, accessible and affordable housing is central to the delivery of many other policy objectives. If we in Scotland had built houses at English rates since 2007, we would have 42,000 fewer homes. In fact, the Scottish Government have committed to something the UK Government no longer do: build both social and affordable housing.

Chris Philp: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I would like to start by replying to some of the points the shadow housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), made at the beginning of the debate about the respective track records of this Government and the previous Government. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the number of housing starts across the country as a whole in the past year, which was 165,000, compared to the right hon. Gentleman’s last year as Housing Minister when the figure was just 124,000—a 33% increase by the current Government, which is an extremely impressive record.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who I see is in her place, drew attention to affordable housing. I am similarly pleased to report to the House that, according to House of Commons Library figures, last year 67,000 affordable houses were delivered compared to just 58,000 in the last year of the previous Labour Government. I think there is a record to be proud of.
	I was privileged to serve on the Housing and Planning Public Bill Committee for 17 sittings with the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), but not, I regret, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, who did not grace us with his presence. I was disappointed by the lack of new ideas in his speech earlier. I thought we might have heard more from a shadow housing Minister.
	There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill, not least the idea that every single local authority must have a local plan by 2017; the local development orders to give outlying planning consent on brownfield sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) mentioned a few moments ago; and the London Land Commission bringing forward public sector land.
	The GLA has done that successfully: 98% of its land is being brought forward. I suggest to the Minister that the London Land Commission be given more powers to take hold of the surplus public sector land identified and make sure that organisations such as the NHS, Network Rail and Transport for London do not shilly-shally or delay.
	I have one or two other suggestions. Parts of the planning process can be cumbersome, with reports on things such as bats and newts—

James Cartlidge: Ken Livingstone.

Chris Philp: Yes, indeed.
	If there is any way of lightening the process, it would be welcome. Similarly, many developers would be happy to pay higher planning fees in exchange for guaranteed faster decision making, perhaps with the extra fees being refunded if the service level was not met. I hope the Minister will take those constructive ideas in the spirit they are intended.
	In summary, having sat on the Bill Committee for 17 sittings, I am absolutely confident it will increase the supply of new homes and promote homeownership, and I strongly welcome it.

Rupa Huq: In 1892, Mr Pooter, from “The Diary of a Nobody”, was the archetypal suburban London Mr Average, but on current figures he could not afford today to live where he did. In 2009, The Spectator said his home would be worth £1 million and that his clerk’s salary would be £40,000. In Ealing, a typical suburb, the figures are astronomical and are placing an average suburb out of reach for the average Joe and Josephine, for whom suburbia was intended. Last year, average rents were £1,400. According to this year’s Land Registry figures, a terraced house in W5 now costs £781,000.
	The Government’s housing record is one of abject failure, on homelessness, homeownership, house building, rents and, crucially, supply. Shelter, an objective charity, says that channelling existing public resources to build homes that only those on high incomes can afford will result in 180,000 affordable and low-rent homes not being built or sold. That is as result of the changes in the Housing and Planning Bill. The goalposts have been moved several times. In respect of rents, “affordable” can now mean up to 80% of market rents, which is just not realistic.
	These subsidised starter homes have been trumpeted, but they are a non-starter for people in my constituency. In Ealing, average earnings are about £34,500. If someone wanted a shot at just a one-bedroom starter home in W13, they would have to earn £73,142. In W4, it is even worse: £90,501. At first sight, the 1% rent reduction looks good, but it will have massive unintended consequences. I went recently to the reopening of the YMCA foyer in my constituency. It has sunk all its assets into it, based on a business plan of rising rents, and it now expects to be completely sunk. It was a massive oversight not to have exempted supported housing.
	There is so much I could say about the mandatory “pay to stay” policy. The figure of £40,000 means two incomes of £20,000, which is not a princely sum in
	London. It is an attack on aspiration, which Conservatives keep talking about. Our capital city is being hollowed out, as we pay ever more for housing yet become ever more insecure at the same time.
	The Spectator 
	says that Holloway is now becoming banker land. I fear that not just Mr Pooter but many others on average and modest incomes are being forced out of London, which is being left to bankers, oligarchs and off-plan buyers, whose playground our capital is becoming.

Mike Wood: I welcome the Opposition’s choice of motion, but I was disappointed by the shadow Secretary of State’s lack of humility when he moved it, given his own underwhelming record in government.
	As the shadow Secretary of State correctly said, housing is a top-four issue. I am sure it is towards the top of most of our postbags. The challenges of housing, rent and affordability are among the major challenges we face, and they deserve better than the rehashed diatribe we heard at the start of the debate. What we are seeing from this Government is the largest land building programme in decades, which will help to address the fundamental problem behind both the availability and affordability of housing.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) correctly said, the elephant in the room is the issue of supply. Why is there this market failure that we do not see in other areas of the economy? Part of the answer is regulatory failure. The Government cannot control all the levers that affect supply, but it is right for them to do what they can to eradicate some of the barriers to that market entry.
	There are two elements at the core of addressing supply. The first is action to bring brownfield land back into productive use for housing. That is why I am so pleased that the Government are introducing this assumption of planning consent for developments on brownfield land. Devolution deals around the country are important, too. The devolution deal reached in my west midlands region is a combined authority with the powers of investment to bring brownfield land, and particularly contaminated brownfield land, back into use so that it can be made part of the land supply for our housing market. That is good for the environment—using brownfield instead of green spaces—good for housing and good for the economy.
	The second area that needs to be addressed to increase supply is preventing the planning system from becoming a bottleneck to the availability of housing. The Government’s action to move away from the regional spatial strategy towards local plans as well as introducing planning in principle is absolutely vital and will hopefully mean that we have the supply to match this record house building programme.

Andrew Slaughter: Members who picked up the Metro this morning on the tube will have seen that Hammersmith features in this week’s property page. They will have found out that the average price of property there is just over £1 million, although they managed to find a one-bedroom basement flat for £425,000, which would be just within the starter home bracket, requiring an income of only just over £100,000 to snaffle that up. The more typical development—the new development with no social housing given permission by the previous Conservative council—sees a two-bedroom flat in Fulham going for £1.2 million or a three-bedroom flat in the Queen’s Wharf or Sovereign Court for £2.2 million.
	That is why owner-occupation has dropped from over 40% to just over 30%. Local people cannot afford to buy those; they are bought by foreign investors from United Arab Emirates, Malaysia or wherever, and are either left empty or rented out, which is why the private sector has gone up from 30% to 40%, but all properties are unaffordable. I am afraid that I have to include in that list of unaffordable properties the 85% of council right to buys, which are now rented out at market rates, and mainly to local authorities that are now paying three or four times what it would cost to live in council accommodation. We know what the Housing Minister thinks about this because he recently said that
	“if people want to live and work in and around London, it’s actually making a judgment call about what you can afford”—
	in other words, “on yer bike”.
	One type of housing is affordable—30% of the accommodation in my constituency is still social housing. Most Governments in the past, irrespective of party, would have regarded that as an asset, but not this Government. What are they doing? They are selling off housing association homes so that they in turn can be turned into buy to let at market rates, and they are selling 50% of the remaining 12,000 council stock in order to subsidise that sale.
	When voters voted to get rid of the Conservative council that was selling off empty council properties—it sold off 300 and was warehousing and emptying blocks of council flats and constructing zero social homes in new developments—they thought that they had got rid of all that. Now, however, we have a Government who are bringing it all back at the national level through the Housing and Planning Bill. There will be no social homes built in the future—nothing that is affordable to my constituents.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) is sitting next to me. Her speech hit the nail on the head when it comes to the most disgusting thing this Government are doing—removing security from people who live in council homes and telling them that they will have temporary housing as a form of charity rather than a permanent home in which to bring up their families.
	The Government have reversed their position on “pay to stay” for housing associations, which is welcome, but they should do the same for everyone. They should let families on modest incomes continue to live in secure homes in London and around the country, and end this appalling business of removing security of tenure from council tenants.

Huw Merriman: We are simply not building enough to keep up with both the demand and the challenges that are faced by many of our constituents who want to buy homes of their own. Government initiatives are radical and welcome, but I would advocate further action, and I hope that the Government will consider some of the following proposals.
	First, there is a need to build on green spaces. Nearly 80% of my constituency is designated as “area of outstanding natural beauty”. There is a shortage of land afforded for local employment, but where there is such land, it is on brownfield sites. If the tens of thousands of houses that my district councils intend to build are allocated to brownfield employment sites, where will our current and next generations of homeowners work?
	In one of my parishes, the village petitioned the district council to allow a small housing complex to be built on a green field just outside the building boundary. As a result of the campaign for building to be allowed on that green site, Etchingham now has a new school, a new village hall, and new affordable housing—all of it courtesy of that bold move. I should like the Government to make it easier to allow parish and town councils to make such decisions. When a district council has a plan, parishes and towns are required to conform to it; if they do not so, their own local plans will not be approved by the district council. I should like to free parishes and towns from the shackles of district plan compliance. If they want to designate a site, then let them do so, and let them override district plans for their own purposes if that is within the planning laws.
	Secondly, there is a need to deliver more infrastructure. Although the argument that more housing is required is being won, there is a real fear that communities will not have schools, doctors and other essential public services until the housing has been completed. If authorities could deliver infrastructure at the same time as building began, the public might embrace the building of more housing, and might even ask for more housing than had been scoped if, say, a new secondary school would be built with a few hundred more houses. I should like local authorities to be given the power to borrow money against the receipts from new homes bonuses, although, of course, that would work only if the new homes bonus scheme were extended for as long as the plans.
	Thirdly, consent needs to be turned into new homes. The amount of land where planning consent has been granted but work has not begun continues to cause concern. The lack of building not only adds to the problem of a shortage of housing numbers, but also deprives local authorities of the ability to collect receipts from section funding or community infrastructure levies. I would support a policy that required developers to pay a first instalment of section 106 moneys within 12 months of the granting of planning consent, rather than on the completion of developments. Such a policy would not only incentivise house building and increase stock, but would permit local authorities to deliver vital infrastructure in parallel with house building.
	The need to tackle our housing shortage is a huge priority. It is a national tragedy that more is not being done, but I support the Government on what is being done.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Zeichner to speak for two minutes.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. My city of Cambridge is in the grip of a housing crisis, and I have 110 seconds in which to speak.
	An email that I received from a constituent recently encapsulates the problem. She wrote:
	“I live, work and pay my council tax in Cambridge. Housing in Cambridge is almost as expensive as London these days. I was very excited to hear about the help to buy ISA—but Cambridge should have the same threshold as London of £450,000. Looking at rightmove right now, it is disheartening that there are only 4 properties that would meet our criteria of 3 bedrooms and the Government’s criteria of maximum £250,000 within a 5 mile radius of Cambridge…How are we supposed to buy, afford and raise a family in Cambridge?”
	There are only four of those properties—four!
	Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer my constituent’s question, but I personally doubt it, because I do not think that the Government have a clue about the real problems that face young people in Britain today. If young people such as my constituent cannot afford to buy, they have to rent, and do we hear anything from the Government about helping renters? I do not think so. If they were really listening, they would know that when house prices become unaffordable in areas like mine, the nature of the private rented market changes. Young families who would once have bought are staying longer in the rented sector, but the legislation has not kept up; the Government have not kept up.
	Let me skip the points I was going to make about the attack on social housing and conclude by saying a little about the impact on business. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) visited my constituency recently and even he, experienced on these issues as he is, was shocked by the consistency of the message from employers. In every sector, be it the thriving life sciences and tech sector, research and our universities or major public sector employers such as the NHS, the message is clear: we cannot recruit and we cannot retain staff while housing remains so unaffordable. This is therefore not just about housing; it is about social justice and inter-generational justice. At the start of my speech I quoted the question from my constituent and I urge the Minister to answer it:
	“how are we supposed to buy, afford and raise a family in Cambridge?”

Teresa Pearce: In a wide-ranging debate, we have heard contributions from Members in all parts of the House, including the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald); my hon. Friends the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman); and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made a passionate speech about the human cost of the housing crisis, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) also spoke with passion about the shortage of social housing. Most interestingly, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) spoke of not only his well-known interest in self-build, but his less-known interest in the Deputy Speaker’s shoes.
	Clearly, the housing crisis is one of the greatest challenges to face our country in recent times, and Members from across this Chamber know the impact that housing has on their constituents’ lives. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) spoke of his casework, which mirrors mine. My advice surgeries are full of people suffering as a result of the housing crisis, and my inbox and telephone line are jammed with their cases. Rent costs are rising, and there are poor standards in the private rented sector. We have ever-increasing homelessness across the country, both in terms of statutory homeless and rough sleeping. The Government are seemingly committed to seeing the end of the social housing sector as we know it. Fewer homes are being built than at any time since the 1920s and we have a generation of young people priced out of the property market. For five years, the Government have had the chance to tackle this housing crisis head on, but they failed.
	It has never been more important to tackle the housing crisis, because housing affects everything—it affects our whole lives. Insecure housing affects our whole society. It affects health, education and productivity. Without a secure roof over our heads, we face uncertainty, instability and doubt. Stable homes make stable communities, and without safe, stable and affordable housing we face pressure across our whole society and across our public services. It affects our schools and our children’s education, with unsettled classes affected by churn and individual children falling behind as they move school again and again. It affects public health and our doctors, who struggle to co-ordinate health awareness campaigns as a result of instability in the housing sector, as residents constantly move between practices. It affects our communities, where many are unable to set down roots, commit to a local area, and join local organisations, sports teams and religious groups. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).
	The Government claimed that they would build more affordable homes, but the “affordable rent” is not affordable to many people. House of Commons Library research shows that in London it would swallow up 84% of the earnings of a family on an average income and it requires a salary of up to £74,000. This does not just affect London; the contributions we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) showed us that this is a national crisis, not just a London one.
	Many of those who cannot afford to buy have to live in the private rented sector, where the Government have failed to increase security and improve standards, and have overseen rents reaching an all-time high. Once the private rented sector was mainly for students and young professionals, but now it is families and the vulnerable who live in the sector. That was spoken about with concern and compassion by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry). Some 9 million people now rent privately. Almost half of those who rent are over 35. They want the same security and stability that they would have if they owned their home, but they face insecure assured shorthold tenancies, and a Government refusing to encourage long-term tenancies and to tackle rising up-front letting agent fees. While these people pay more, the Government are failing to act to improve standards in the sector. Although the majority of properties in the private rented sector are well maintained and of good quality, there are sadly too many landlords who let properties that are not fit for human habitation. Indeed, the Government’s own statistics say that 16% of private rented sector dwellings are failing the minimum safety standard. When my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North introduced a private Member’s Bill to make sure that homes were fit for human habitation, it was talked out by Conservative Members, who argued that it would put a huge burden on landlords.

Chris Philp: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Teresa Pearce: I am afraid we are very short of time, so I cannot.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) also touched on the rising housing benefit bill, which is now £4.4 billion higher than in 2010. The Housing and Planning Bill included an all-out attack on social housing. On the last day of the Committee, the Government added a last-minute amendment to end secure tenancies for social tenants without any consultation or impact assessment.
	I would like the Minister to respond to two questions. If home ownership is the only way forward, where are people who cannot get a mortgage meant to live? Can he confirm that starter homes will be for first-time buyers and will not be available to cash buyers?
	The Housing and Planning Bill will lead to a loss of affordable homes to rent and buy, but more than anything it is a missed opportunity to tackle the housing crisis head on, to provide greater security, stability and safety to tenants in the private rented sector, to offer a genuine hand-up to those who are trying to get on the property ladder and to build more social housing. We have seen a comprehensive spending review and an autumn statement that have failed to provide for a programme of affordable house building and have attacked many tenants on low incomes due to cuts in housing benefits.
	For five years the Conservatives have had the chance to tackle the housing crisis. They have failed. They have their own track record, and it is one of five years of failure. They should and will be judged on it.

Marcus Jones: I thank all Members for taking part in this lively debate. Before I respond to the speeches made by hon. Members, the House will appreciate a reminder of what has been achieved since 2010. Back then, the housing market was broken. We inherited a planning system that was dysfunctional, and levels of house building that were tumbling. The economy and public finances were on the brink of collapse. Enormous progress has been made since. Almost 900,000 new homes have been delivered in England since 2010. In the last Parliament the number of first-time buyers doubled, the number of new homes we built doubled and public support for new house building doubled, and since 2010 we have helped more than 270,000 households buy a home.
	We have provided more than 270,000 affordable homes for rent, with almost one third of those in London. We are the first Government since the 1980s to finish their term with a larger stock of affordable homes. A reformed planning system gives far greater weight to the views and needs of local communities, but in this Parliament we want to go much further. The Government’s investment is being doubled to £20 billion in the next five years.
	It will support the largest housing programme by any Government since the 1970s. Our ambition is to deliver 1 million more homes and double the number of first-time buyers.
	My hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) all made fabulous and important contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk explained the importance of self-build and praised the measures in the Housing and Planning Bill to promote it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that council house building is now at its highest level for 23 years, knocking down the myth promoted by the Labour party.
	It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester point out that the Conservatives in local government, not Labour, are providing affordable houses in Worcester. I was also pleased to hear his welcome for our crackdown on rogue landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen stated the importance of first-time buyers and the Help to Buy ISA that the Government are introducing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk mentioned the measures that the Chancellor is taking to make things fairer for first-time buyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a great point about the importance of the additional housing that will be provided by the right-to-buy receipts, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble and for Dudley South made encouraging comments about planning in principle on brownfield sites and the difference that it will make in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South mentioned the London Land Commission and the potential for public sector land to be brought forward for development. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle was a strong advocate of neighbourhood planning.
	That brings me to the points made by Opposition Members. I shall start where my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning left off. He mentioned “Back to the Future” to describe Labour’s approach and he was right. Labour still has a past which it harks back to, but it has very little of a future to look forward to if today’s debate is anything to go by. Speaking from the Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) spent 40 minutes in total on their opening and winding-up speeches, and did not put forward one idea for tackling one of the biggest issues facing the country. It was all soundbites, empty rhetoric and ideology rather than pragmatism to help people get into their own home. For some reason Opposition Members seem very happy to own homes themselves, but when it comes to other people having the chance to own their home, they do not seem to want it. We want people to have the opportunity to own their home, which 86% of people want.
	There were eight speeches from Labour Back-Bench Members that were extremely consistent with those from their Front Bench. In those eight speeches not one idea was suggested to try to deal with the issues that the country faces. There was one notable exception. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made several constructive comments and proposed a number of ideas that we will look at in the context of the debate.
	Britain has come a long way over the past five years, a journey that has taken us from the brink of bankruptcy to being the fastest-growing advanced economy in the world. Confidence has returned and living standards are rising. More people are buying homes and house building is on the rise. But we must go further, and this Government are under no illusion about the scale of the progress that is required. In the past five years we have pulled house building up from the record lows of the previous decade, and in the next five years we intend to push it up further to levels not sustained since the 1980s. The challenges that we face today have been many decades in the making.
	Our focus moves us from rescue to reform. We must address the deep structural weaknesses in the way that this country plans and builds for the future. A better housing market will be vital for raising the productivity of our country and rebalancing the economy. Above all, it will ensure that Britain is a country of opportunity, where everyone who works hard can realise their dream of home ownership—the housing association tenant, the young family who want to settle down, and the retired couple who want to build their own house. They all voted for a better housing market and that is what this Government are determined to deliver.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 205, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Petroleum

That the draft Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 28 October, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Divorce proceedings of a UK citizen abroad

Gavin Williamson: My constituent Sian Mitchell moved to the United States last year, following her engagement and marriage to an American citizen. Sadly, shortly after the birth of her son earlier this year, her marriage fell apart. Her multi-millionaire husband, Mr Angus Mitchell, has taken out court orders preventing Sian from taking her child out of the State of California until proceedings have been resolved, making it as difficult as possible for her to bring up her son in the way she wishes. Sian is away from her family and relies on their emotional support during this extremely difficult time. She is desperate to return home to the United Kingdom with her child to allow her family to have the chance to meet this little boy for the first time. I therefore present the petition on behalf of 154 residents of South Staffordshire.
	The petition states:
	The petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that Mrs Sian Mitchell moved to the United States of America where she married a US citizen with whom she has a son; further that divorce proceedings are currently in motion and Mrs Mitchell has been ordered by the courts in California to remain in the State with her son until proceedings have been resolved; and further that the petitioners believe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government should offer as much support and assistance to her as possible so she can return to the United Kingdom.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government to make representations to the US Government and the State of California to press the issue and get a resolution to the problem at the earliest possible stage so that Mrs Mitchell can return to the United Kingdom with her son as soon as possible.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001662]

TRANSGENDER PRISONERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Guy Opperman.)

Cat Smith: I am pleased to have secured my first Adjournment debate on the issue of transgender prisoners. It is not a topic that I knew much about before my election in May, but in my seven months in this House it has certainly gained my attention.
	As someone who was interested in equalities issues before entering the House, I was keen to be elected to the Women and Equalities Committee. The Committee’s first inquiry into transgender equality is expected to be published early next year and we have taken evidence on trans people in the prison system. It was at that evidence session that I first became aware of the issue that is before us in this debate. It struck me that trans people face barriers and complications at pretty much every point in their lives, but there is a particular problem in our prison system. The description that was put to me last week was that
	“getting involved in transgender issues is like a reverse onion, the more you look to peel off layers, the bigger it gets!”
	Research suggests that trans people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. The proportion of trans people in the prison system may be twice the proportion in the general population. Many of the offences for which trans people are incarcerated apparently involve obtaining money for privately funded gender reassignment surgery. That is an insight into the lengths to which some trans people feel they have to go to live life in their acquired gender. Other possible reasons for the over-representation of trans people in the criminal justice system include the involvement of sections of the trans community in sex working and substance misuse. However, throughout my involvement in this issue, it has been a constant struggle to find any reliable data.
	The recent cases, which have been much discussed in the media, have focused attention on the polices of the National Offender Management Service towards transgender prisoners in England and Wales.

Angela Crawley: I thank the hon. Lady for calling this important debate. As my former colleague on the Women and Equalities Committee, I know that she is a great champion of trans issues. The Scottish Prison Service has worked closely with the Scottish Transgender Alliance to produce guidance on gender identity and gender reassignment to ensure that prisoners are placed in the estate that reflects their gender identity, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. Will she join me in calling for the UK Government to follow the Scottish example?

Cat Smith: The hon. Lady has pre-empted the next part of my speech. There are huge differences in the placement of transgender prisoners between the Scottish prison estate and the English and Welsh prison estate. The policy guidelines for England and Wales state that prisoners should normally be located in the prison estate of their gender, as recognised by UK law. For transgender prisoners, that is normally decided by the gender stated on their gender recognition certificate. There is some flexibility to allow transgender prisoners who do not have a GRC to be located in the estate of their acquired gender, where a case conference and multidisciplinary risk assessment determine that it is appropriate.

Iain Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important and sensitive debate. Joanne Latham was found hanged in her cell at HMP Woodhill in my constituency. She was at the very early stages of changing gender and, therefore, would probably not have been covered by the regulations. Does her case not highlight the need for a case conference to be convened at an earlier point in the person’s journey?

Cat Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point and highlights the difficulties. A great number of people who have transitioned gender do not have a gender recognition certificate, so this does not just affect those who are at the beginning of their transition. Many trans people do not seek a gender recognition certificate for a great number of reasons, including financial reasons such as access to pensions. That puts them at risk, were they to enter the prison estate in England and Wales, of not being assigned to the prison estate of their acquired gender.
	I welcome the Government’s review of the policy guidelines for England and Wales. The scope of the review was broadened recently to ensure that the care and management of transgender prisoners are fit for purpose.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: There is a clear danger when trans people are placed in all-male prisons, as has been highlighted in this debate. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as issuing the much-needed guidance, the Government should impose a legal responsibility on prison governors to ensure that there is safe housing for trans people, no matter what stage of the reassignment process they are at?

Cat Smith: All prisoners should be safe on the prison estate. As a state, we have a responsibility to keep all prisoners safe.

Jim Shannon: I asked beforehand whether the hon. Lady would give way. Today in Northern Ireland it has been announced that a prisoner is alleging sexual abuse in Maghaberry prison. This is a devolved matter, I understand. He is taking action against the Prison Service. Does the hon. Lady feel that, while the Minister will answer for England, there is a need for legislation for human rights in prison for all prisoners across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Cat Smith: I believe it is clear that the whole of the UK has a responsibility to safeguard trans people in all walks of life and that no part of the UK has got this issue absolutely correct.
	As I mentioned earlier, the guidelines state that the social gender in which the prisoner is living should be fully respected, regardless of whether they have a GRC.
	I would be interested to know whether the review will be comparing the experience of trans prisoners in Scotland with those of trans prisoners in the England and Wales model.
	Evidence presented to the Women and Equalities Committee suggested that there are problems with the way trans people are treated when they appear in court—well before they enter custody, therefore—with discriminatory behaviour such as misnaming and mis-gendering. The Gender Identity Research and Education Society stated in evidence to the Committee:
	“Trans people are frequently ‘outed’ in court situations to create, deliberately, a negative view of them, whether their trans history is relevant or not. The Gender Recognition Act s22(4)(e) has been misused to achieve this.”
	It also appears that a lack of understanding of trans experiences can lead to assumption, bias, potential breaches of confidentiality and other issues in the process of writing pre-sentence reports, which is undertaken by members of the national probation service.
	In response to my taking up of this issue in the House on several previous occasions, I have received contact from prisoners, both trans and cisgendered. I want to share with the House some of the accounts I have heard.
	From my contact with a trans woman prisoner currently held in a men’s prison, I was alarmed to learn that as well as feeling insecure and being a victim of rape and sexual assault, she is being denied the ability to continue the healthcare and medical appointments that she is having as part of her transition. Prior to entering custody, she had privately arranged final stages of reconstruction surgery to further progress her transition, and the National Offender Management Service is refusing to allow her access to this surgery and to the hormonal medication she has been taking to assist the process.
	It is difficult to express how difficult that is making her life, so I will quote from her letter to me:
	“The Governor’s blocked all my medical letters to my surgeons, the prison have no right to strip me of my care/hormone treatment. This is killing me as I am now in reversal.”
	For any Members who are unclear, reversing is someone transitioning from male to female potentially growing a beard, for instance, while living as a woman, which would be distressing for any prisoner, I suspect.
	She is a very vulnerable prisoner, with recorded serious attempts of self-harm, and attempts at suicide. She began the transition process in 2008, and formalised her intention to remain living as a woman for the remainder of her lifetime in 2012, via the making of a “statutory declaration” under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Yet she tells me:
	“There is no knowledge of how suicidal I am because they don’t care what impact”
	their
	“choices have on me physically and psychologically. I’m totally destroyed, not the woman I was. I feel I will kill myself soon. I cannot do this now. Please will you help me?”
	She has told me that during her time in custody in a male prison she was raped twice and sexually assaulted. She told me:
	“I cannot take no more—I’m a woman in a male prison. This is not right.”
	Despite being successful on 29 October at county court in obtaining a judgment in her favour that the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for providing access to private medication and treatment outside of prison, and that that is a decision for the prison governor following a multidisciplinary meeting, and even though she contacted his office on 10 December 2015, this is yet to be facilitated. While she continues to be denied the right to surgery and to be moved to a female prison establishment, she remains extremely vulnerable and at a very high risk of harm. Examples of her self-harm have included injecting bleach into her testicles and attempting self-surgery to remove her scrotum.
	I will now make my last quote from this prisoner’s letter to me:
	“I hope you can help me and get me out of this hell of a prison that’s not fit for transgender people or cares for them.”
	I can reassure the House that her constituency MP is taking her case very seriously and doing her best to assist this prisoner.
	Interestingly, NOMS has agreed that when she is released from custody, it will support her continuing supervision in the community in a female “approved premises”. There is no consistency in this case, and her story seems typical of that of many trans prisoners. Journalist and LGBT campaigner Jane Fae told the BBC:
	“My serious concern is this is blowing the lid off something that is going on—that for a very long time trans prisoners have not been treated well within the system, that the rules that exist are being overridden... And this is leading to a massive, massive amount of depression and potentially, in some cases, suicidal feelings.”

Jenny Chapman: I am sorry to have to agree with my hon. Friend and to point out that, at the moment, once every four days, somebody takes their own life in our prisons.

Cat Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that upsetting statistic with the House.
	In concluding, I will look for some optimism. Public opinion and awareness of this issue seem to be improving. BBC “Look North”, PinkNews, and many others have done a great job of holding the Government to account on it, as has The Huffington Post. It has launched the “TransBritain” campaign, which aims to raise awareness of transgender rights in Britain today. I urge the Minister to take a look at some of the work that it is doing.
	My hon. Friend the shadow prisons Minister wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) last week to welcome the announcement that his Department’s review into trans prisoners will now be widened to consider what improvements can be made across prisons, probation services and youth justice services.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way because I am very conscious of the time. Reflecting what happens in Scotland might affect the debate, in terms of the additional access to care within a prison framework, such as access to items that may be necessary to relieve gender dysphoria and facilitate gender expression such as chest binders and prosthetics. That may add to what the hon. Lady is discussing.

Cat Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
	Will the Minister confirm exactly when she estimates that the review that I mentioned will conclude? In answer to my urgent question last month, and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the prisons Minister confirmed that, although the Government do not currently hold data centrally on the number of transgender people in prisons, they will start publishing them in future, and that they plan to introduce a self-assessment declaration at pre-sentence report stage. Does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction of those measures? Could she let us know what steps the Government are taking while the review is under way to ensure that recent tragedies are not repeated?
	I want to finish with a brief point about the prison estate in general. We know that the right conditions need to be in place to allow prisoners the space to rehabilitate themselves and play a role in society. The outgoing prisons inspector’s latest report revealed that our prisons are in the worst state for 10 years. Overcrowding is up. Violence, against staff and prisoners, has increased, and self-harm and suicides are also up.
	My noble Friend Lord Falconer has warned:
	“Violent, under-staffed prisons will never be able to rehabilitate prisoners, challenge re-offending behaviour or protect victims of crime.”
	That is especially true for trans prisoners.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on securing the debate. She made some powerful and important observations in her speech, and I will be more than happy to look into any individual cases if she would be kind enough to forward them to me.
	As the hon. Lady will understand, the care and management of transgender people in prison is not only a complex but a sensitive issue, which the Government and I take very seriously. As she knows, I hold not only a role in the Ministry of Justice, but the Women and Equalities portfolio. The subject therefore affects me in both roles.
	We are committed to incorporating equality and diversity into everything we do and ensuring that we treat all offenders with decency and respect. Current policy and guidance on the care and management of prisoners who live or propose to live in a gender other than the one assigned at birth are set out in Prison Service Instruction 07/2011. The instruction states that all prisoners are normally placed according to their legally recognised gender. Legal gender is determined by the individual’s birth certificate or gender recognition certificate, if they have one. When someone has obtained a gender recognition certificate, they are entitled to a new birth certificate in their acquired gender. The guidelines allow some room for discretion, and senior prison staff will review the circumstances of each case in consultation with medical and other experts, in order to protect the physical and emotional wellbeing of the person concerned, along with the safety and wellbeing of other prisoners.
	The prison estate, and the intervention and support it provides to all offenders, is highly complex. Offenders are more likely to suffer poor mental health, to have issues with substance misuse, or perhaps to have suffered domestic abuse or sexual violence than the general population. All those considerations must be taken into account when we decide on the most appropriate place for an offender to receive the right care and rehabilitation.
	As the House will appreciate, the circumstances of individual transgender prisoners vary widely. It is therefore right that NOMS should take a case-by-case approach that is informed by advice from the relevant professionals. Under current arrangements, prisons must produce a management care plan that outlines how the individual will be managed safely and decently within the prison environment. That plan will have oversight from psychologists, healthcare professionals, and prison staff.
	Where a lack of clarity about the most appropriate location for a prisoner is associated with their gender identity, the instruction states that a multi-agency case conference must be convened. That will determine the best way forward consistent with the policy, taking into account the individual’s protection and wellbeing, as well as that of other prisoners, and any other risk factors that are of paramount importance.
	As the hon. Lady will know, we have received a number of representations that express concern that the current system may not sufficiently address the needs of transgender prisoners. As has already been announced, NOMS is undertaking a review of the relevant prison service instruction to ensure that it is fit for purpose. That must provide an appropriate balance between respecting the needs of the individual, and the responsibility to manage risk and safeguard the wellbeing of all prisoners.

Barry Gardiner: In cases where the care management plan has obviously failed, what action has been taken against those responsible?

Caroline Dinenage: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I will come to that point soon, and I will be more than happy to communicate with him after the debate if I do not cover everything.
	Last week I announced during Justice questions that that review will now be widened to consider what improvements we can make across prisons, probation services and youth justice services. The review will develop recommendations for revised guidelines that cover the future shape of prison and probation services for transgender prisoners and offenders in the community. It will be co-ordinated by a senior official from the Ministry of Justice, who will engage with relevant stakeholders—including from the trans community—to ensure that we provide staff in prisons and the probation service with the best possible guidance.

Angela Crawley: Has any consideration been given to those who identify as non-binary or non-gendered in that review and guidance?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The terms of reference for the review have been published, and that refers back to the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood about the evidence learned from experience in Scotland. The review will ask for evidence and submissions in the new year, and we want that to be an open and engaging process. Everything and anything will be taken into consideration at that point.
	We want to ensure that we provide staff in prisons and probation with the best possible guidance. NOMS, the Youth Justice Board, the national health service and the Government Equalities Office have already started to provide the professional and operational expertise necessary to get this right. In addition, Peter Dawson and Dr Jay Stewart will act as independent advisers to the review. Peter Dawson is deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust and has served as deputy governor of HMP Brixton and governor of HMP Downview and HMP High Down. Dr Jay Stewart is a director of Gendered Intelligence, an organisation that aims to increase the understanding of gender diversity.
	An aspect of the review to which the Government have given a firm commitment is defining how we can properly record the number of transgender prisoners and offenders in the community. There are a number of sensitivities associated with this, of which the hon. Lady, who has served on the Select Committee, will be aware. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 places constraints on the recording of information about individuals who have applied for or been issued with a gender recognition certificate. Individual prisons are of course aware of those prisoners in their care who live or propose to live in the gender other than the one assigned at birth, in order properly to provide a care management plan for them that is consistent with the policy guidelines.
	NOMS is currently looking at ways to facilitate the recording of information relating to transgender status through the introduction of an equality self-declaration form—to which the hon. Lady referred—to be completed by all defendants as part of their pre-sentence report. As well as obtaining other equality-related information, the use of such a form as standard would enable us to monitor the amount of self-declared transgender individuals who have received a custodial or community sentence. The resourcing and operational impact of introducing the form is being looked at right now, and I hope we will have more news on that shortly.
	There has recently been considerable media interest in a number of individual cases, the reporting of which has, sadly, been rather wide of the mark in some parts. As the House will appreciate, operational issues relating to the effective management of risk and the protection of offenders mean that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. A key issue is the privacy of individual offenders and their families. An individual’s history of offending constitutes “sensitive personal data” for the purpose of the Data Protection Act 1988, as can information on their possible transgender status. Such information can therefore be released only when it is fair and lawful to do so. The threshold is high and requires a strong countervailing public interest for the information to be disclosed. Factors relevant to that assessment will include whether the individual has given their consent for the information to be released.
	In addition, under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, it is a criminal offence for someone who has acquired information in an official capacity—including civil servants, holders of public office and employers—to disclose information about a person’s application for a gender recognition certificate or where the certificate has been issued that discloses the person’s previous gender.
	Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act also defines any information relating to a person’s application for a gender recognition certificate or to a successful applicant’s gender history as “protected information”. In most instances, it is a strict liability offence to disclose protected information to any other person if the information has been acquired in an official capacity. The exemptions to when it is an offence to disclose protected information listed in section 22 are very tightly drawn to avoid abuse and protect individual privacy. If the hon. Lady has examples of where that has not been upheld, I would be keen to know about it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised the death of his constituent. I have explained why there are limits to what I can say about individual cases. None the less, I wish to place it on public record that both myself in a personal capacity and the Government consider each self-inflicted death in custody a tragedy. We are committed to reducing the number of deaths in prisons, and every death is the subject of investigations by the police and the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, as well as a coroner’s inquest. The safety and well-being of all prisoners in our care is of the highest priority.
	I am mindful of the wide-ranging evidence put to the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into transgender equality. It has taken some fascinating and really valuable evidence and I very much look forward to hearing its recommendations in due course.
	I wish to reassure the hon. Lady of my utmost commitment to the care and management of transgender prisoners. The planned review will allow us the opportunity to focus on their needs and their well-being against the backdrop of social reform, and as part of our wider investment in the rehabilitation of all prisoners in our care.
	I thank the hon. Lady for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject and look forward to discussing it further with her in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.